Game of Champions 2017 - GAME OVER

[Sloonei]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

[S~V~S]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

[Kylemii]

Kyle’s just voting me because he’s trying to save himself and knows I’m the next scapegoat.

???

I'm voting for you because you're the most likely player to have killed sprityo over the other 3 possibilities.

I'm also... not trying to save myself. if I have to be lynched to prove your guilt then I can accept that

Sounds good!

i dont really understand what your plan is for after I flip, aren't you just going to die the next phase? how does this benefit you at all

[Kylemii]

Kyle’s just voting me because he’s trying to save himself and knows I’m the next scapegoat.

???

I'm voting for you because you're the most likely player to have killed sprityo over the other 3 possibilities.

I'm also... not trying to save myself. if I have to be lynched to prove your guilt then I can accept that

Please explain to me how Scotty is the most likely person to have killed sprityo. What qualifies him for this achievement?

already explained this. you were instrumental in lynching Nutella and LC, Sloonei is unlikely to have used his role in a nefarious way, and spacedaisy is less likely to be even by extension. That leaves Scotty

By extension of what?

extension of sloonei's role and their mutual trust, in addition to some other things that have happened

[Sloonei]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

[Scotty]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I ain’t mocking, SVS. I’m asking you to get off the train you are conducting before you go in the tunnel. Wow, now that I type that out, no wonder it sounds so weird. I left out the part where my brain jumped to “tunneling”.

Anyway, I’m asking you to take a step back and think y way for a bit. No mocking.

[quote=Scotty post_id=429831 time=<a href="tel:1523483952">1523483952</a> user_id=410]
[quote=Kylemii post_id=429823 time=<a href="tel:1523483600">1523483600</a> user_id=289]
[quote=Scotty post_id=429791 time=<a href="tel:1523476315">1523476315</a> user_id=410]Kyle’s just voting me because he’s trying to save himself and knows I’m the next scapegoat.

???

I'm voting for you because you're the most likely player to have killed sprityo over the other 3 possibilities.

I'm also... not trying to save myself. if I have to be lynched to prove your guilt then I can accept that
[/quote]
Sounds good!
[/quote]

i dont really understand what your plan is for after I flip, aren't you just going to die the next phase? how does this benefit you at all
[/quote]
Because I think you’re bad and it won’t come to me getting lynched.

What do you think of Boomslang, Kyle? Enough about me and you for now

[S~V~S]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

You should reread it. It is fairly illuminating. And the lynch was very visibly tied, you should at least consider ithere may have been someone trying to save LC before lynching people on POE. I mean you are dismissing it out of hand without even reading it.

[Sloonei]

I'm also going to call attention to the shift in kyle's attitude from yesterday to today. Yesterday he prioritized self-preservation in his vote for me:

voting for [VOTE: sloonei] aubergine for self preservation I guess, and also in the hopes that he's the pika2 killer

Today he is willing to play the sacrificial lamb:

i don't mind going first if it's necessary for PiE

I also still have unanswered questions about the actual motivation for his vote yesterday. When it came time to place it, he emphasized self-preservation and a vague prayer about my potential badness (yuck). But he also spent some time picking up on one particular talking point about me and framing it negatively. We had a lengthy exchange about this after the day, but I never got a clear sense of whether he was actually suspicious of me at the time of his vote. It seemed to me like he wanted there to be justification for his inevitable sloonei vote, but has been unable to produce any.

[Epignosis]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

That whole damn team was a mess. I'm not on it and I can tell that much.

LC gave up the name of the other tribe and failed to offer the most obvious excuse for it.

nutella quit talking about anybody and focused on her tests.

They've missed kills or failed to kill.

Kylemii missing a vote at a critical juncture doesn't move me one bit about a team that hasn't been sharp.

Hell, Lorab missed several votes and she was bad.

[Epignosis]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

You should reread it. It is fairly illuminating. And the lynch was very visibly tied, you should at least consider ithere may have been someone trying to save LC before lynching people on POE. I mean you are dismissing it out of hand without even reading it.

I read it as early as this morning and I don't think anybody tried to save Long Con- least of all the guy who got killed Night 2 by Long Con's team.

[Sloonei]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

You should reread it. It is fairly illuminating. And the lynch was very visibly tied, you should at least consider ithere may have been someone trying to save LC before lynching people on POE. I mean you are dismissing it out of hand without even reading it.

I intend to, but I also can tell you, as somebody who was actively involved in that day, that the urgency to produce a lynch was legitimate for at least one member of the tribe. The only thing that alarmed me was that we suddenly pivoted to sig as our primary suspect, not that there was an alarming push for a lynch. This was my first hand experience of the day, but it warrants a review.

[S~V~S]

This is part of the reason I thought you were bad, Sloonei. I no longer think so, but can you see my perspective?

"I don't really think this happened but I don't actually remember it and aren't going to read it to figure it out."

[mention]Epignósis[/mention] missing THAT vote was critical, it could have been the difference between LC being lynched or not.

[Sloonei]

This is part of the reason I thought you were bad, Sloonei. I no longer think so, but can you see my perspective?

"I don't really think this happened but I don't actually remember it and aren't going to read it to figure it out."

@Epignósis missing THAT vote was critical, it could have been the difference between LC being lynched or not.

This is not what I said. I said twice in that post that I intend to read it. And I see your perspective. I appreciate it and it makes sense. I am only trying to offer my perspective in turn.

[Epignosis]

This is part of the reason I thought you were bad, Sloonei. I no longer think so, but can you see my perspective?

"I don't really think this happened but I don't actually remember it and aren't going to read it to figure it out."

@Epignósis missing THAT vote was critical, it could have been the difference between LC being lynched or not.

Long Con was getting lynched sooner or later. I sure wouldn't have made any effort to save his ass.

[insertnamehere]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

Even when it was happening, the whole pushing for a lynch, no-matter-what, convincing-cases-be-damned thing felt like a thin excuse for a witch hunt that I wasn't buying into. Out of the three people who were reeeeeally pushing lynches, one's a dead civilian, one's you, who I'm ambivalent about, and the other is Scotty. I feel like someone was using that pro-lynch fervor for nefarious purposes, and Scotty makes the most damn sense.

On Day 5, the dude was adamently against me for pretty flimsy reasons. Then I show up, defend myself and offer a case against sig, who wasn't around at all, and he jumps on it, changing the direction of the lynchwagon straight down the path of least resistance exactly when the Evens needed Cerberus to outvote Pikachu.

Since then, he's engaged in a pattern of disingenuous flippity floppity and illogical, dirty-feeling narrative pushing that I feel like I've written extensively about. At this point, I feel like people have kinda retreated into their own ideological bubbles in terms of lynch candidates, so any more case-making would just be shouting into the void.

I think Scotty's bad, I've thought that for a large chunk of the game at this point, and shitty voting record be damned, I might just end up voting him until one of us dies.

[VOTE: Scotty] aubergine

[Sloonei]

I also feel like kyle's behavior yesterday reflecte how I'd expect a vulnerable scum to treat yesterday's lynch. There was a civilian bandwagon (yo) which became his singular focus. His focus was not just singularly on me, but also singular to one particular issue about me.

I would expect a hypothetical baddie in kyle's shoes to want to be able to provide justification when they cast their vote to push out the civilian. Kyle did thid by picking out one talking point that was prevalent in the thread about me and proceeded to lock in and bury me with it. He denied that Daisy's alignment matterer at all, despite claiming to be profoundly concerned with my treatment of her. If he was genuinely concerned and confused, I would expect him to want to consider all possible aspects of the issue. Instead I got the sense that kyle only wanted to talk about the parts that could be construed to make me look bad.

[Sloonei]

A big issue I have with your Scotty case, [mention]insertnamehere[/mention] is that I don't regard "flip flopping" as a necessarily suspicious action. A huge part of solving any game is working through a progression of ideas and reads. A civilian's mind should change a ton from start to finish. If you want to argue that Scotty's progression doesn't represent an honest or consistent thought process, I'll listen. But if the accusation is simply that he's "flip flopping" then I can't get behind. I've flip-flopped too many times myself to get behind that.

By contrast, you have been focused on Scotty for the long haul, and I am beginning to question the progression of your thought process. There doesn't seem to be any.

[Epignosis]

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

Even when it was happening, the whole pushing for a lynch, no-matter-what, convincing-cases-be-damned thing felt like a thin excuse for a witch hunt that I wasn't buying into. Out of the three people who were reeeeeally pushing lynches, one's a dead civilian, one's you, who I'm ambivalent about, and the other is Scotty. I feel like someone was using that pro-lynch fervor for nefarious purposes, and Scotty makes the most damn sense.

On Day 5, the dude was adamently against me for pretty flimsy reasons. Then I show up, defend myself and offer a case against sig, who wasn't around at all, and he jumps on it, changing the direction of the lynchwagon straight down the path of least resistance exactly when the Evens needed Cerberus to outvote Pikachu.

Since then, he's engaged in a pattern of disingenuous flippity floppity and illogical, dirty-feeling narrative pushing that I feel like I've written extensively about. At this point, I feel like people have kinda retreated into their own ideological bubbles in terms of lynch candidates, so any more case-making would just be shouting into the void.

I think Scotty's bad, I've thought that for a large chunk of the game at this point, and shitty voting record be damned, I might just end up voting him until one of us dies.

[VOTE: Scotty] aubergine

Hoo boy.



Glad I read that shit this morning and yesterday.

First, this was your reaction to sig not getting lynched (even though sig was good and LC was bad):

okay what the fuck

did eight people vote for LC on the other tribe?

You look pretty adamant here that one of your tribe's lynches go through. A civilian sig survived while a mafia Long Con died, and your reaction was to be pissed that your tribe didn't score the lynch?

Second, your biggest complaints against Scotty were Day 1 when he and Sloonei were having a go at you to move shit along I guess.

Be mindful that Scotty was Scotty 1, who had yet to be killed by the Evens. He was innocent then.

In terms of voting, I wouldn't be against going the Scotty route and voting for JoH. This is the Game of friggin' Champions. Champions, at the very least, show up.

You agreed with Scotty to vote for a (likely) civilian JackofHearts2005.

People I'm looking at today, in no particular order:

Sig - Same reasons as yesterday. May vote for him.
Daisy - Not really done much other than go after Boomslang for kinda flimsy reasons and randomly vote for Wilgy. May vote for her.
Kyle - I suck at reading him, so I'm kinda fighting my instincts on this one, but I really didn't like his overreaction to the perceived overreaction of Boomslang's 70% comment. Not gonna vote for him today due to insanification.
Scotty - The Lorab thing is weak sauce. I myself sometimes struggle with having solid reads, and can be hella reticent to concretely voice my opinions, so Lorab is reading as a town-read to me. Scotty sure is posting a bunch, but I'm not really sure what all he's saying. Plus, he hasn't yet posted a Survivor Mafia 2 in The Drawing Board forum. We should lynch him solely for that. May vote for him.
Wilgy - Good ol' unreadable clusterfuck-y wiggly Wilgy. I appreciate his defense of me against Sloonei's nonsense, but he's still one big question mark to me, way more than perhaps any other player. Probably won't vote for him.
Nijuu - Like his Sig vote, but still a bit of a blank read. I know that this is WIFOM soup, but considering that it appears that mafia remain mafia after losing a life, I can't help but wonder if they'd NK one of their own early on just to muddy up the waters. It's a dumb reason to suspect Nijuu, as I'm well aware, but it's why I can't really loosen up and townread him. Probably won't vote for him.

You didn't agree with Scotty about Lorab though.

I have been doing most of my reading at work, which is why when I post it has more thoughts. I can't post as easily at work. So I know that when I was catching up once Wilgy started talking something he said jumped out at me and immediately made me think, "teammates." But I can't recall off the top of my head. I will need to find it again. I just don't have time tonight.

On another note, I think I was a lot more loud about the fact I didn't like Boomslang jumping on the dumb 70% thing. I get why it doesn't make sense as a statement, but I think Boomslang is a really smart dude. He should have been able to realize, that this statement is not one that logically would say "Baddie." So the fact that he based his vote on that dumb comment is what bothers me. in fact that is what bothers me about Boomslang overall. I have a high amount of respect for his intellect in general. And I struggle to find the logic in his suspicions. This could entirely just be a difference of how we think, that is my only hindrance in this. But I have no qualms about the fact I suspected Boom based on that. I think it's weird no one really talked much about the fact I took this strong stance about it. And even weirder that I don't even remember Kyle having made a big deal of it.

I don't have the immediate feeling of "TOWN" from Kyle that I have in the past, but I haven't had any kind of feel.

At one point in my read through, I had the thought that I believed either Boomslang, Blooper or both were bad but I didn't believe they were both good. I can't recall why now though. Perhaps something to do with how they interacted. I'll have to revisit to figure it out again.

Uh something else, I can't recall. Someone that had listed suspicion of me seemed fake as shit, but now I don't remember which one. Must research to recall.

That's all I can think of tonight. My energy went to researching Wilgy to decide if I was on crack or not regarding my perception of his meta. I decided that I don't think I am. However I will add this caveat. The older games lack this pattern. But I feel like it is present in all the games I checked from 2017 and so far in 2018. I didn't look through all 2016, I noticed the lack of it back in the 2015 games, but we're talking three years ago. I still feel fairly strongly that we are seeing bad Wilgy here. So much so I am willing to toss my vote there right now.

VOTE DrWilgy You asked for an aubergine fiiiiight, and I love you toooo. But I still think you are bad. But I love you, Baddie Badderson.

Coaching weak suspicions in "you're usually better" nonsensical sentiment. Boomslang is usually smarter (which Daisy and Sloonei seem to define as agreeing with their suspicions instead of having their own opinions) and DrWilgy is, I guess, more gimmick-y? The only thing from Wilgy's game-content that I've found disagreeable is his Boomslang vote today. Daisy's highly-subjective entirely-meta case against him just seems like formless finger pointing.

I'd vote for Daisy or Sig today over anyone else. I'm gonna try and ISO Scotty at some point and give my thoughts on him and his glut of content.

You defended Wilgy and voiced more suspicion of Daisy or sig than Scotty.

@Scotty if I moved my vote to sig, would you follow me?

You asked Scotty if he'd help you lynch sig.

It's like, what- you need someone whom you suspect's support for you to vote sig on the very Day Long Con was being lynched in the other thread?

Screw it, leap of faith.

sig aubergine

Here you hope sig gets lynched.

He doesn't.

You look upset.

okay what the fuck

did eight people vote for LC on the other tribe?

So people who want to push a lynch through no matter are disingenuous before Day 5, but you're not on Day 5, the only time in Cerebus you tried really hard to push through a lynch?

Do I have that right?

[insertnamehere]

A big issue I have with your Scotty case, @insertnamehere is that I don't regard "flip flopping" as a necessarily suspicious action. A huge part of solving any game is working through a progression of ideas and reads. A civilian's mind should change a ton from start to finish. If you want to argue that Scotty's progression doesn't represent an honest or consistent thought process, I'll listen. But if the accusation is simply that he's "flip flopping" then I can't get behind. I've flip-flopped too many times myself to get behind that.

By contrast, you have been focused on Scotty for the long haul, and I am beginning to question the progression of your thought process. There doesn't seem to be any.

Hence the phrase "disingenuous." A large part of what I've said about Scotty is accusing him of going after people, then backing down when faced with resistance in a way that feels like pragmatic target-shifting instead of civvie idea-progression or whatever. It's the whole Day 5 thing again, the dude just is barrelling down the path of least resistance most of the time. And the few times when he isn't, i.e. his Night 11 case against Sloonei, flat-out don't make sense. I'm not sure what you're asking me for in terms of "progression." I've written a bunch of words about Scotty, and no, not all of them are re-hashing Day 5.

Here's a post from Day 13 where I broke down his activity over the last couple of phases:

Spoiler: show

I'd like to try and eliminate one of the possible Evens from Pikachu 2.0 today.

Kyle is someone I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. I was convinced his behavior in LOTR was scummy, but I was proven hella wrong. I haven't really figured out how to read him. He feels like the "easiest" lynch out of the group.

Daisy, I vacillate on. I'd like her to explain why she wants to put Scotty on "the backburner."

Sloonei has been a hesitant town read for me since the beginning. My only real quibble with him is his seemingly unshakable faith in Scotty as a townread, even after Scotty's unimpressive case against him, which Sloonei correctly identified as pretty damn tenuous.

Moving onto my main suspect: Scotty. Here's a rundown of what he's done since the end of Day 12, where he almost got lynched, but managed to shift enough votes onto Sig to squeak by.

Since then, he's been on the warpath against multiple people, seemingly switching targets depending on thread traction.

His first target was Kyle, who he accused of "skating by on his ignorance," mainly by quoting a bunch of times Kyle asked someone a question.

Scotty's case against Kyle is incredibly damn similar to my case against him in LOTR, where we were both civilian.

Spoiler: show

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.

A few hours later, Sloonei point-blank asked Scotty who he thought was bad. Here's his response:

so who's bad?

But via the Even route,
If I had to rank everyone on Pikachu 2.0, based on the assumption that kills are targets and players have to only target on their tribe, I’d currently rank as such, from most likely to least likely
-Kyle
-SD
-you

By the next day, this order has already changed, and Sloonei goes from a civ read straight to a full-on baddie. He posts a lengthy case accusing Sloonei of being "wishy-washy" and "pushing a narrative" during Day and Night 11. Here's Sloonei's response:

To be clear, you think I withheld a kill on Night 10 so that I could implicate wilgy, even though I knew it would be revealed that he was not responsible for the missed kill immediately after, and was more than likely going to be lynched next anyway?

Sure.

Or as I said, other things could have happened and the kill wasn't purposely withheld. Could have been a block or a save or something. But when it didn't go through, in any case, it was an easy next step to continue pushing for wilgy.

Yeahhh, this case against Sloonei just doesn't make logical sense to me, and requires too many bonkers assumptions.

This is the quote that I keep coming back to when describing Scotty's gameplay:

Why is it that when I do something you don't like I'm "pushing narratives" but when I do something that might be good I'm "squeaking"?

Fast forward to this morning:

People I’m making my mind up on:

I BELIEVE ARE CIV—
Nijuu
Epi
Dom
SpaceDaisy
Quin
SVS

I BELIEVE COULD GO EITHER WAY, BUT LEANING CIV-
Boomslang

IDK-
cbob
DDL
sprityo

I BELIEVE COULD GO EITHER WAY, BUT LEANING BAD-
Sloonei
Kyle

I BELIEVE TO BE BAD-
INH
LoRab


If I could move my IDK’s out of that category, then my POE will be so much clearer.

I’m comfortable with where we at, fam. Lookin good in either case, even if y’all (SD, Quin, SVS) mislynch me.

Now apparently Lorab and I are a rung below Sloonei and Kyle, who he spent the previous 48 hours or so harping on. Scotty doesn't even explicitly agree with anyone's specific case against Lorab. He just makes a statement saying that "Day 2 Scotty" would be thrilled at people wanting to lynch Lorab, and places him at the bottom of his read list.

There's a pattern here. Scotty is frantically switching between hastily-assembled, clearly-biased cases against people he think he can shift his thread-heat onto, in order to save his own bacon. He's just throwing pasta at the wall, hoping that some of it sticks strongly enough that he can hide behind it.

Now, Scotty's a smart, self-aware fella. Here are his responses to accusations of making flippy floppy and pushing forth biased narratives:

Yep, I absolutely wasn’t sure of you a few days ago. I had a strong civ read, then Wilgy died, and I was left second guessing. But your conviction that I am bad, though egregiously wrong, makes me feel better about you again.

Are you telling me that reads don’t change for you from time to time? My reads are not deadset, otherwise I’d be a statue (a damn sexy gargoyle, if you ask me): so yeah, I’ve oscillated on you, and view you as civ right now.

I get it, I’m not going to sway you from voting me. But if not me, who would you vote?

Why is it that when I do something you don't like I'm "pushing narratives" but when I do something that might be good I'm "squeaking"?

I'm looking at you under a lens, so pushing narratives is just another way of how it fits my thinking. And I'm not comparing you doing "something good". I'm saying you were hardly screaming for people to start looking at you as a culprit. I think I did a pretty good job of pointing out that you were doing it out of necessity because everyone else was looking that way.

I know exactly how you feel, SVS. I’m feeling more and more detached as the game drags on and no one really validates my cases. And I’ve made a multitude of cases- LoRab, INH, Wilgy, Sloonei, etc that I’m beginning to think I’m just wrong about all of them. Some look at them as ingenuine and/or mudslinging, but I think that’s because they’re just not seeing things from my point of view- I feel like I’m right, and I want to be right, so it makes it that much harder.

You’re wrong about me, but I feel like we at least share this feeling.

What this comes down to is how much credit each player is willing to afford to Scotty. He's either an idiosyncratic sensistive soul who is constantly revising his opinions, and looking at players through different "lens" of his choosing, or, he's changing his point of view in order to save himself, and writing cases that impugn targets while glorifying himself, while also having a fraught relationship with the concept of "objectivity."

Personally, I'm far more willing to buy into the latter. But your mileage may very.

[VOTE: SCOTTY] aubergine

Here are a couple of my responses to his case against me on Day 12:

Spoiler: show

I didn't find Wilgy suspicious, and I stand by my reasons for not finding him suspicious. You painting my attempts to not go along with you and Sloonei's attempts to pressure me into voting for either Wilgy or Boomslang in order to fulfill the idiotic imperative of lynching someone, as weaksauce is eyeroll-worthy. You also bafflingly say that my vote for Sloonei was a NO U, when the Sloonei vote was more of a joke than anything else, which is something I thought was patently obvious. I was pretty annoyed at his pressuring me, and did it to vent frustration, even though I never thought he was bad or expected anyone else to follow me. Ironically, this was right around when all the heat on LC was starting to rise over at Pikachu. Personally, I think the rush to lynch someone on Cerberus had to be, on a certain level, pushed to prevent Pikachu from lynching more baddies, and I still suspect you more than a little for it, as I've stated multiple times.

I thought I kinda explained my Day 9 vote, but I guess I'll do it again. It was a few hours before EOD, I didn't have much time to post, and I fell prey to the "why not Wilgy, the dude's inactive and inscrutable" mentality. I later realized how utterly wack that is, and wrote the wall-post to dissect how people seemed to be voting due to this "why not," mindset, and how it could potentially lead to civilian apathy and disorganization. I still think my point is valid.

This post is a big bowl of poisoned WIFOM, in which you ignore context to make me look bad, and to make yourself look good.

Bleh.

Scotty made this big INH interactions post out of nowhere, threw a vote on him and then dropped the interactions scumhunting angle completely. Yuck!

“Out of nowhere”
Wilgy’s interactions should be scrutinized, and since a few people have already made reservations against INH, I used the ole “search” function in INH’s post history for Wilgy and there you go. I don’t like it.

I did a similar breakdown of Boom, but found far less defending and far more offending. I dunno, I feel like INH looks worse for wear when it comes to Wilgy.

“Dropped the interactions scumhunting angle completely”
Wha huh? I don’t know what you’re talking about, bub

Plus since the moment i saw INH in this game i've wanted to dryhump him into the nth dimension so there's that too

Ok wait so you’re adamantly defending the dude that only comes out of his hidey hole when he’s taking heat? All because you haven’t gotten spayed and neutered?

Look, this sig case he just popped out is only happening because he’s leading the lynch and needs a scapegoat.
INH has been genuinely peeved to be taking heat this entire game, but looking at his history of the past 12 days, how is it that he’s saintly?

Naw dog.

First off, you just completely ignored my response to your case, where I said that you painted specific instances in a way that ignored context while glorifying yourself and attacking me. If you want to say that you were solely motivated by going into my ISO, searching for Wilgy, and deciding that a town read of him must mean that I'm bad, sure, fine. But, you still haven't said how my town read of Wilgy is disingenuous.

I'm sorry, but looking around immediately after the death of a baddie, and pointing the finger at whoever said the nicest things about him is way more a case of easy scapegoating than me pushing sig for a lynch. S~V~S had specific factors connected to a perceived meta connection between me and DH. Those factors were wrong, but I could see the logic. You just keep repeating that I defended Wilgy. That's true. But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean diddly squat unless you can explain why my defenses of Wilgy came from a non-civilian mindset, which is something you seem to be uncomfortable doing.

Onto the Sig thing. This is the most annoying part of this post, for me. Dude, I didn't just pop out a case against Sig because I need a scapegoat. I've been going after the guy since Day 5. You know that because you agreed with my case against him on Day 5, and actually voted alongside me against him. Since then, he's been more or less a consistent scumread. I've posted multiple updates of my case against him, and I voted for him yesterday. Now, you're saying that this entire thing, my entire suspicion of Sig since Day 5 has been a ruse to save my bacon on Day 12? C'mon son. That there is willful ignorance.

I'm gonna ignore the parts where you cast blame against me because my activity is irregular, and because I get annoyed when people write dumb cases against me.

My response to your case was, in no small part, motivated to see how you would respond. This is probably the worst possible response.

Here's Day 11, when I really started to go after him:

Spoiler: show

Now, for Scotty. Here's the thing about Scotty. Dude posts a shitton of stuff. To me, him posting a shitton of stuff ain't alignment indicative. It's his playstyle, and he'd try to imitate it best he could if he was bad.

In my opinion, he's been relentlessly pushing weak lynch candidates, who are mainly infrequent posters, then backing off whenever he detects any possible resistance. Here's the example of this that sticks in my proverbial craw, due to the context of the Pikachu Tribe at the time, and the likely possibility that scum team BTSC communicated info about each tribe, and they all knew about the lynch-trading mechanic.

Thirdly, Scotty. @S~V~S, you were pretty sus of him due to all the Day 5 shenanigans. Here's my perspective. Scotty, JoH, and Sloonei were all desperately pushing towards lynches at any costs at this point in the game, which was tricky due to having no real flips or info to go off of. Their solution seemed to essentially be playing spin-the-bottle with whoever either disagreed with them or hadn't posted in a while. Boomslang, who is my current top civ read, disagreed with them, and has been relentlessly pursued because of it.

Sloonei and Scotty had a case against me, which they themselves admitted was BS. Nevertheless due to a mixture of apathy and inertia, I began picking up votes. I wrote up a case against sig, which was based on actual, y'know, stuff, and that managed to shift their attention.

At the time, I was nervous that a scummeister could be using the pressure towards a lynch with more voters than Pikachu's to frame civilians.

The fact that this push to beat Pikachu's numbers happened at the same time as LC was about to be lynched over there, well, it don't look great.

Out of the three (relatively) hyper-active players pushing towards a lynch, Scotty's the one that looks the worst to me. JoH is dead, and Sloonei has seemingly calmed down a hell of a lot when the button got pressed. Scotty's the one who first made the switch when I protested against my lynch and offered an "easier" alternative.

This is all not to imply that I don't still suspect sig. As I said over at NuCerberus:

Like Quin said, there's a pretty decent chance that in a game this size that's this convoluted, (I know, I'm one to talk) there are multiple baddie teams. Even if sig's "wagon" was bolstered by an attempt to save LC's bacon, that doesn't discount any of my suspicions of him. Plus, sig had an extra life at that time, and I could see a baddie team not really minding bussing a member with two lives to try and save someone else.

Scotty's the one who moved thread-targets lightning fast, and desperately tried to drum up votes in order to fulfill the, imo, not particularly necessary, objective of lynching someone at the exact same time that Pikachu was about to sell LC down the river.

The timing stinks worse than 8-month old tuna.

Other things fill me with skepticism towards him. His beating of the Boomslang drum, and his utter bafflement when I said I listed him as a town read. Followed by his 180 where he now leans civ on Boomslang despite trying to lynch the poor guy for most of the game. Bleh.

That's off the top of my head. I may try and dive into the mountain of Scotty posts to try and dig for some more stuff later. Unfortunately, I need sleep.

I can post more examples if people ask, but I feel like my thought process on Scotty is varied and well-documented. If people want to ask me about it, they can feel free. I gotta go respond to Epi's wall of nonsense.

[colonialbob]

I'm also going to call attention to the shift in kyle's attitude from yesterday to today. Yesterday he prioritized self-preservation in his vote for me:

voting for [VOTE: sloonei] aubergine for self preservation I guess, and also in the hopes that he's the pika2 killer

Today he is willing to play the sacrificial lamb:

i don't mind going first if it's necessary for PiE

I also still have unanswered questions about the actual motivation for his vote yesterday. When it came time to place it, he emphasized self-preservation and a vague prayer about my potential badness (yuck). But he also spent some time picking up on one particular talking point about me and framing it negatively. We had a lengthy exchange about this after the day, but I never got a clear sense of whether he was actually suspicious of me at the time of his vote. It seemed to me like he wanted there to be justification for his inevitable sloonei vote, but has been unable to produce any.

I don't feel this is as damning as you do. Self-pres is alignment neutral, and your flip was a significant event that I can see townie Kyle saying "ok Sloonei is good, I can accept getting lynched to prove Scotty is bad" whereas before it was still between you and Scotty if civ Kyle goes first, so giving himself up isn't as helpful.

All that said I'm still putting him top priority of the pika2 crew.

[colonialbob]

I also feel like kyle's behavior yesterday reflecte how I'd expect a vulnerable scum to treat yesterday's lynch. There was a civilian bandwagon (yo) which became his singular focus. His focus was not just singularly on me, but also singular to one particular issue about me.

I would expect a hypothetical baddie in kyle's shoes to want to be able to provide justification when they cast their vote to push out the civilian. Kyle did thid by picking out one talking point that was prevalent in the thread about me and proceeded to lock in and bury me with it. He denied that Daisy's alignment matterer at all, despite claiming to be profoundly concerned with my treatment of her. If he was genuinely concerned and confused, I would expect him to want to consider all possible aspects of the issue. Instead I got the sense that kyle only wanted to talk about the parts that could be construed to make me look bad.

This is a more convincing case on Kyle. I'll reread the day to see how much I agree but this lime of reasoning clicks with me.

[Epignosis]

If you believe Scotty is Strex, why?

If you believe Scotty is an Even, then who killed him Night 2?

Go.

[insertnamehere]

If you believe Scotty is Strex, why?

If you believe Scotty is an Even, then who killed him Night 2?

Go.

Inbetween composing my response to Epi's turgid, repetitive wallpost of old, stale, laundry, I thought of responding to this.

Actually, I'm gonna let past me answer this one.

He was killed on Night 2, correct? This is pure, uncut, WIFOM, but there's been a kinda low-level suspicion brewing ever since the start of the game, or at least I remember someone mentioning it in Cerberus, that scum teams would be willing to nightkill one of their own early on, putting them on their second life, but giving them cover throughout the rest of the game. That's assuming alignments carry over after death, of course, but from my limited perspective, that appears to be the case.

I'm not ruling him out.

[Epignosis]

If you believe Scotty is Strex, why?

If you believe Scotty is an Even, then who killed him Night 2?

Go.

Inbetween composing my response to Epi's turgid, repetitive wallpost of old, stale, laundry, I thought of responding to this.

Actually, I'm gonna let past me answer this one.

He was killed on Night 2, correct? This is pure, uncut, WIFOM, but there's been a kinda low-level suspicion brewing ever since the start of the game, or at least I remember someone mentioning it in Cerberus, that scum teams would be willing to nightkill one of their own early on, putting them on their second life, but giving them cover throughout the rest of the game. That's assuming alignments carry over after death, of course, but from my limited perspective, that appears to be the case.

I'm not ruling him out.

That doesn't answer either one of my questions.

[Sloonei]

The tinfoil about teams killing their own members for town credibility is the strongest argument I can make against Scotty that doesn't revolve around POE. It's not very strong.

[Epignosis]

I don't see how anyone can be cleared by being NKed in a game with two lives, possible target switching roles, possible post death alignment switches and an Even team featuring a guy who killed himself for cred. In a game Epi hosted, iirc.

Also, two things.

First, Long Con didn't exactly kill himself for credibility. And it happened late in the game when the mafia were almost cooked anyway.

Second, I didn't host that. I was cooking mafia with Illyria.

[Epignosis]

The tinfoil about teams killing their own members for town credibility is the strongest argument I can make against Scotty that doesn't revolve around POE. It's not very strong.

But...you don't get any credibility for being killed by the mafia, because you could be a civilian and come back mafia (in theory- I don't think that's happening).

What I want to know is this:

Who the fuck killed Scotty?

Because it wasn't Long Con.

And it wasn't nutella.

Scotty was killed by an Even.

Who was that Even?

[Sloonei]

The tinfoil about teams killing their own members for town credibility is the strongest argument I can make against Scotty that doesn't revolve around POE. It's not very strong.

But...you don't get any credibility for being killed by the mafia, because you could be a civilian and come back mafia (in theory- I don't think that's happening).

What I want to know is this:

Who the fuck killed Scotty?

Because it wasn't Long Con.

And it wasn't nutella.

Scotty was killed by an Even.

Who was that Even?

Kyle and/or INH would be my first guesses.

[Sloonei]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

[insertnamehere]

I like how Sloonei posted about how he expects civilians to change targets and ideas often, showing a clear thought progression, and that he thought my harping on Scotty showed a lack of progression, while Epi just rolls up and says "YOU DIDN'T SUSPECT SCOTTY ON DAY 4? JEEZ, INCONSISTENT MUCH?"

idk who to
vote for. lol. wat. help.
idk cbob? boomslang?

Why not kyle?

Kyle didn't care who was lynched day five; indeed Kyle didn't care about the lynch enough to even vote. Had he voted for sig, LC might not have been lynched. I find him an unlikely Even.

And Scotty mocking people isn't nice. I am not conducting.

I am not as certain that there was an effort to save Long Con in Cerberus as you are. I did not want to say this when I was being lynched because I figured it would just he turned against me, but the frustration about our lack of lynches had been mounting. The push by Scotty, myself, and others to get somebody lynched could very well havd just been a product of collective frustration.

Kyle was largely disengaged and I wouldn't expect him to put up a big fight to save his teammate. He just wasn't active enough at the time.

Having said all that, I do not remember exactly how things went down that day.

Even when it was happening, the whole pushing for a lynch, no-matter-what, convincing-cases-be-damned thing felt like a thin excuse for a witch hunt that I wasn't buying into. Out of the three people who were reeeeeally pushing lynches, one's a dead civilian, one's you, who I'm ambivalent about, and the other is Scotty. I feel like someone was using that pro-lynch fervor for nefarious purposes, and Scotty makes the most damn sense.

On Day 5, the dude was adamently against me for pretty flimsy reasons. Then I show up, defend myself and offer a case against sig, who wasn't around at all, and he jumps on it, changing the direction of the lynchwagon straight down the path of least resistance exactly when the Evens needed Cerberus to outvote Pikachu.

Since then, he's engaged in a pattern of disingenuous flippity floppity and illogical, dirty-feeling narrative pushing that I feel like I've written extensively about. At this point, I feel like people have kinda retreated into their own ideological bubbles in terms of lynch candidates, so any more case-making would just be shouting into the void.

I think Scotty's bad, I've thought that for a large chunk of the game at this point, and shitty voting record be damned, I might just end up voting him until one of us dies.

[VOTE: Scotty] aubergine

Hoo boy.



Elf is hella overrated. Kinda like you.

Glad I read that shit this morning and yesterday.

First, this was your reaction to sig not getting lynched (even though sig was good and LC was bad):

That was Sig 1.0. So, we don't know 100% if he was bad or good. Assumption.

okay what the fuck

did eight people vote for LC on the other tribe?

You look pretty adamant here that one of your tribe's lynches go through. A civilian sig survived while a mafia Long Con died, and your reaction was to be pissed that your tribe didn't score the lynch?

I was confused and more than a little bit baffled that seven people wasn't a high enough number to lynch someone, especially when Pikachu seemingly had no idea they had to outvote us to push a lynch through. It didn't makes sense to me unless LC did some serious shit, hence the question. Once again, this is confusion instead of "pissed." Distortion.

Second, your biggest complaints against Scotty were Day 1 when he and Sloonei were having a go at you to move shit along I guess.

Be mindful that Scotty was Scotty 1, who had yet to be killed by the Evens. He was innocent then.

And? If your point is that I didn't suspect him now, which makes my later continued suspicion hypocritical, then why do you specifically identify Scotty 1.0 as "innocent?" Wouldn't that make me look better for not suspecting the iteration of Scotty you think is 100% good?

In terms of voting, I wouldn't be against going the Scotty route and voting for JoH. This is the Game of friggin' Champions. Champions, at the very least, show up.

You agreed with Scotty to vote for a (likely) civilian JackofHearts2005.

Yep. I didn't have any major suspicions on Day 1, sue me, so I went against JoH's inactivity on Day 1 of the Game of friggin' Champions. Even AWOL Wilgy was around on Day 1. D'you have a problem with that, champ?

People I'm looking at today, in no particular order:

Sig - Same reasons as yesterday. May vote for him.
Daisy - Not really done much other than go after Boomslang for kinda flimsy reasons and randomly vote for Wilgy. May vote for her.
Kyle - I suck at reading him, so I'm kinda fighting my instincts on this one, but I really didn't like his overreaction to the perceived overreaction of Boomslang's 70% comment. Not gonna vote for him today due to insanification.
Scotty - The Lorab thing is weak sauce. I myself sometimes struggle with having solid reads, and can be hella reticent to concretely voice my opinions, so Lorab is reading as a town-read to me. Scotty sure is posting a bunch, but I'm not really sure what all he's saying. Plus, he hasn't yet posted a Survivor Mafia 2 in The Drawing Board forum. We should lynch him solely for that. May vote for him.
Wilgy - Good ol' unreadable clusterfuck-y wiggly Wilgy. I appreciate his defense of me against Sloonei's nonsense, but he's still one big question mark to me, way more than perhaps any other player. Probably won't vote for him.
Nijuu - Like his Sig vote, but still a bit of a blank read. I know that this is WIFOM soup, but considering that it appears that mafia remain mafia after losing a life, I can't help but wonder if they'd NK one of their own early on just to muddy up the waters. It's a dumb reason to suspect Nijuu, as I'm well aware, but it's why I can't really loosen up and townread him. Probably won't vote for him.

You didn't agree with Scotty about Lorab though.

I like it when people completely ignore my actual, usually valid reasoning for not finding someone suspicious who was later revealed to be a scummeister, instead just thumbing their nose at me, being smug, and acting like they've never been wrong about a person in mafia. If you think that my reasoning for not finding Lorab suspicious at this point is itself suspicious, please explain why.

I have been doing most of my reading at work, which is why when I post it has more thoughts. I can't post as easily at work. So I know that when I was catching up once Wilgy started talking something he said jumped out at me and immediately made me think, "teammates." But I can't recall off the top of my head. I will need to find it again. I just don't have time tonight.

On another note, I think I was a lot more loud about the fact I didn't like Boomslang jumping on the dumb 70% thing. I get why it doesn't make sense as a statement, but I think Boomslang is a really smart dude. He should have been able to realize, that this statement is not one that logically would say "Baddie." So the fact that he based his vote on that dumb comment is what bothers me. in fact that is what bothers me about Boomslang overall. I have a high amount of respect for his intellect in general. And I struggle to find the logic in his suspicions. This could entirely just be a difference of how we think, that is my only hindrance in this. But I have no qualms about the fact I suspected Boom based on that. I think it's weird no one really talked much about the fact I took this strong stance about it. And even weirder that I don't even remember Kyle having made a big deal of it.

I don't have the immediate feeling of "TOWN" from Kyle that I have in the past, but I haven't had any kind of feel.

At one point in my read through, I had the thought that I believed either Boomslang, Blooper or both were bad but I didn't believe they were both good. I can't recall why now though. Perhaps something to do with how they interacted. I'll have to revisit to figure it out again.

Uh something else, I can't recall. Someone that had listed suspicion of me seemed fake as shit, but now I don't remember which one. Must research to recall.

That's all I can think of tonight. My energy went to researching Wilgy to decide if I was on crack or not regarding my perception of his meta. I decided that I don't think I am. However I will add this caveat. The older games lack this pattern. But I feel like it is present in all the games I checked from 2017 and so far in 2018. I didn't look through all 2016, I noticed the lack of it back in the 2015 games, but we're talking three years ago. I still feel fairly strongly that we are seeing bad Wilgy here. So much so I am willing to toss my vote there right now.

VOTE DrWilgy You asked for an aubergine fiiiiight, and I love you toooo. But I still think you are bad. But I love you, Baddie Badderson.

Coaching weak suspicions in "you're usually better" nonsensical sentiment. Boomslang is usually smarter (which Daisy and Sloonei seem to define as agreeing with their suspicions instead of having their own opinions) and DrWilgy is, I guess, more gimmick-y? The only thing from Wilgy's game-content that I've found disagreeable is his Boomslang vote today. Daisy's highly-subjective entirely-meta case against him just seems like formless finger pointing.

I'd vote for Daisy or Sig today over anyone else. I'm gonna try and ISO Scotty at some point and give my thoughts on him and his glut of content.

You defended Wilgy and voiced more suspicion of Daisy or sig than Scotty.

Yeah, because it was Day 4. My opinions changed over the course of the game, dude.

@Scotty if I moved my vote to sig, would you follow me?

You asked Scotty if he'd help you lynch sig.

It's like, what- you need someone whom you suspect's support for you to vote sig on the very Day Long Con was being lynched in the other thread?

I was leading the lynch at this point for fairly barmey reasons. Scotty was one of the people voting for me. I thought that if I convinced him to vote sig, that I'd have a better chance of not getting lynched, and someone who I thought was bad would be lynched in my place.

I was both the person who was gonna get lynched on Day 5 if I didn't say anything and the person who came up with the sig case in the first place. Scotty was the one who immediately backtracked from his suspicion of me, and launched onto Sig when I tried to be a nuisance.

Screw it, leap of faith.

sig aubergine

Here you hope sig gets lynched.

He doesn't.

The leap of faith thing was because I was worried Scotty wouldn't follow me. My vote was on some other person for self-preservation purposes, and by switching to Sig, I could be screwing myself over if Scotty didn't follow me over to sig.

You look upset.

Confused. But if you want to ignore context and argue over semantical nonsense, be my guest. I don't fit your narrative, bub.

okay what the fuck

did eight people vote for LC on the other tribe?

was this double-quote for emphasis or to pad things out?

So people who want to push a lynch through no matter are disingenuous before Day 5, but you're not on Day 5, the only time in Cerebus you tried really hard to push through a lynch?

Do I have that right?

On Day 5, I was in danger of being lynched. Since I had lost a life previously, I could have been killed for realsies. I tried to scumhunt and find someone I thought was a baddie both for altruistic and selfish reasons. You've often said that you appreciate it when people getting heat in the thread spend more time scumhunting instead of defending themselves. I tried to put that into action.

To be honest my issues with the "lynch-pushing" stemmed from my belief that the cases people were getting behind were all weaksauce. I didn't agree with any of 'em. So, I found someone I thought was hella suspicious and tried to draw attention to them, and away from me. After Day 5, I kept pushing sig, even after Scotty and company spontaneously lost interest. That's because I legitimately thought I was right. Of course, this being a traditional mafia game in the year 2018, I seem to be fucking wrong about everything.

I can either assume I'm wrong about everything or hope that I'm on the cusp of finally doing something in this game. Hopefully that something is getting Scotty, a baddie, lynched.

[insertnamehere]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

[Epignosis]

I can't see the polls when I read Cerberus, so I was not clear that you were on the chopping block Day 5. That makes a difference in how I read what you posted. I still suspect you, but only for reasons I already suspect you, and not for anything new.

I would like to know who you think killed Scotty.

[insertnamehere]

The tinfoil about teams killing their own members for town credibility is the strongest argument I can make against Scotty that doesn't revolve around POE. It's not very strong.

But...you don't get any credibility for being killed by the mafia, because you could be a civilian and come back mafia (in theory- I don't think that's happening).

What I want to know is this:

Who the fuck killed Scotty?

Because it wasn't Long Con.

And it wasn't nutella.

Scotty was killed by an Even.

Who was that Even?

we don't know if alignment is baked into roles or if roles are completely incidental to alignment. I kinda suspect the latter.

Yes, Epi, there are multiple Evens left. It would seem that at least one of them was on Cerberus. I think one of those was Scotty. Hell, tinfoil-madness-time, the dude could have killed himself. If not, there could be another one from Cerberus. I'm not sure who that other one is. Sorry.

[Sloonei]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

[Epignosis]

The tinfoil about teams killing their own members for town credibility is the strongest argument I can make against Scotty that doesn't revolve around POE. It's not very strong.

But...you don't get any credibility for being killed by the mafia, because you could be a civilian and come back mafia (in theory- I don't think that's happening).

What I want to know is this:

Who the fuck killed Scotty?

Because it wasn't Long Con.

And it wasn't nutella.

Scotty was killed by an Even.

Who was that Even?

we don't know if alignment is baked into roles or if roles are completely incidental to alignment. I kinda suspect the latter.

Yes, Epi, there are multiple Evens left. It would seem that at least one of them was on Cerberus. I think one of those was Scotty. Hell, tinfoil-madness-time, the dude could have killed himself. If not, there could be another one from Cerberus. I'm not sure who that other one is. Sorry.

I'm not interested in "the dude could have killed himself."

This is the Game of Champions, as you noted when you voted JackofHearts Day 1. Killing yourself isn't showing up.

[Epignosis]

And this is not "tinfoil madness time."

ffs

At least five mafia are dead. This is the time to eliminate the most obvious candidates before throwing up your hands and saying "the dude could've killed himself" Night 2 for no fucking reason since nobody gets any credibility from merely being killed.

Nah.

[Epignosis]

Additionally, if you are going to pursue the avenue that Scotty killed himself, then why not apply that thinking to anybody else who has been killed so far?

[insertnamehere]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

Too many "could"'s and "I think"'s and assumptions that make asses out of you and I.

Your subjective assumptions of how civilians and baddies would treat you in certain situations seems irrelevant from my perspective.

[Sloonei]

The only reason I'd give the theory more weight for Scotty is that some dope (yo) soeculated about the strategy in the immediate aftermath of the Night 1 kill. It's possible Scum Scotty saw that and got to thinkin'.

I'm not voting Scotty today.

[Sloonei]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

Too many "could"'s and "I think"'s and assumptions that make asses out of you and I.

Your subjective assumptions of how civilians and baddies would treat you in certain situations seems irrelevant from my perspective.

My perspective is irrelevant, got it.

Continuing to vote for INH.

[insertnamehere]

Epi, your spirited defense of Scotty, insisting that he couldn't have gained any credibility from killing himself is probably exactly what he was hoping for when he killed himself.

Killing yourself is pouring a biiiig glass of WIFOM on top of anyone's suspicions of you being from a certain team. TBH, that was my first thought when I saw that this game would have both extra lives and baddie teams: some crazy fucker's gonna be scum and get himself nightkilled in order to appear civ.

This be the Game of Champions, the game of massive gambits and balls-to-the-wall play. This would be a balls to the wall move, one that I believe Scotty is crazy enough to try.

[Epignosis]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

Too many "could"'s and "I think"'s and assumptions that make asses out of you and I.

Your subjective assumptions of how civilians and baddies would treat you in certain situations seems irrelevant from my perspective.

"Subjective assumptions" coming from the guy who's best answer to "Who killed Scotty?" is "Scotty."

[VOTE: insertnamehere] aubergine

You are pushing against civilian efforts rather than working with them to arrive at a reasonable consensus. You are bad.

[Epignosis]

"who's best answer"

You know I'm worked up.

[insertnamehere]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

Too many "could"'s and "I think"'s and assumptions that make asses out of you and I.

Your subjective assumptions of how civilians and baddies would treat you in certain situations seems irrelevant from my perspective.

My perspective is irrelevant, got it.

Continuing to vote for INH.

When you only judge things from a highly subjective standpoint, and don't even try to be objective, sure.

Sorry for not aligning with your playstyle. You have a pattern of scumreading those that don't (me, Kyle, Boom) and townreading those that do (Scotty).

[insertnamehere]

i'm in full-on fuck-it i'm-gonna-probably-be-lynched-but-at-least-i'll-be-hella-smug-when-i'm-right mode

[Epignosis]

Epi, your spirited defense of Scotty, insisting that he couldn't have gained any credibility from killing himself is probably exactly what he was hoping for when he killed himself.

Killing yourself is pouring a biiiig glass of WIFOM on top of anyone's suspicions of you being from a certain team. TBH, that was my first thought when I saw that this game would have both extra lives and baddie teams: some crazy fucker's gonna be scum and get himself nightkilled in order to appear civ.

This be the Game of Champions, the game of massive gambits and balls-to-the-wall play. This would be a balls to the wall move, one that I believe Scotty is crazy enough to try.

SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTION

[Epignosis]

And TWO ADVERBS

[insertnamehere]

this is when a game's worth of irritation just messily goes everywhere, basically.

[Epignosis]

Another point about Scotty that is relevant to my read of him, but which I could not/did not want to talk about before today is that he seemed to perceive that I could hold a powerful role going back a long way (I think I first noticed it when we were still in the tribal phase). He never made a big deal of this, but he made subtle mentions of it which (I think) I picked up on and which told me he thought my role could be having a significant effect on my play/the game in general. This eventually manifested itself in his hesitence toward lynching me a few days ago.

If Scotty is bad, he silently makes a note of my potential power role and then disposes of me as quickly as possible.

this is absolutely worthless to me

Why?

Too many "could"'s and "I think"'s and assumptions that make asses out of you and I.

Your subjective assumptions of how civilians and baddies would treat you in certain situations seems irrelevant from my perspective.

My perspective is irrelevant, got it.

Continuing to vote for INH.

When you only judge things from a highly subjective standpoint, and don't even try to be objective, sure.

Sorry for not aligning with your playstyle. You have a pattern of scumreading those that don't (me, Kyle, Boom) and townreading those that do (Scotty).

How are you being objective?

[insertnamehere]

Epi, your spirited defense of Scotty, insisting that he couldn't have gained any credibility from killing himself is probably exactly what he was hoping for when he killed himself.

Killing yourself is pouring a biiiig glass of WIFOM on top of anyone's suspicions of you being from a certain team. TBH, that was my first thought when I saw that this game would have both extra lives and baddie teams: some crazy fucker's gonna be scum and get himself nightkilled in order to appear civ.

This be the Game of Champions, the game of massive gambits and balls-to-the-wall play. This would be a balls to the wall move, one that I believe Scotty is crazy enough to try.

SUBJECTIVE ASSUMPTION

I know. You got snippity at my subjective assumptions, why not at Sloonei's?