Ancient Greece Mafia [CONQUEST]

[speedchuck]

Nova voters:

I'm completely baffled by Turnip Head.

Macdougall's analysis today (tonight I guess) is fantastic, and makes me wonder why his name is in this pile. He has Nova as a town read now. It appears that his vote was in place for the same reason I ended up staying on Epi. The alternatives sucked. Still looks weird.

Sig is obviously town.

Mac has a pretty good case on Sloonei. It's the kind of case I like to see, based on motives rather than slips or 'weirdness.' I'd probably put a vote there RN if it was daytime.
Haven't read the Sloonei response, yet.

linki: Why is a long post suspicious?

[Marmot]

Scotty did nothing wrong. If anything pushing Epi is civvie because Epi is a tough nut and was intentionally playing goofy. Probably was even doing it to see who would lay into him for civ clues. You're bad.

I doubt it. Civilians defend players because they think they're civilian, not to bait other players into disagreement.

Your conclusion here doesn't line up with the ISO of Scotty I made. I concluded that I think he looked good after Day 1 even though I originally thought otherwise, but that I didn't understand his incredulousness after Day 1.

[Marmot]

Nova voters:

I'm completely baffled by Turnip Head.

Macdougall's analysis today (tonight I guess) is fantastic, and makes me wonder why his name is in this pile. He has Nova as a town read now. It appears that his vote was in place for the same reason I ended up staying on Epi. The alternatives sucked. Still looks weird.

Sig is obviously town.

Mac has a pretty good case on Sloonei. It's the kind of case I like to see, based on motives rather than slips or 'weirdness.' I'd probably put a vote there RN if it was daytime.
Haven't read the Sloonei response, yet.

linki: Why is a long post suspicious?

Because it's MacDougall.

[Sloonei]

What is nice?

[Sloonei]

Nova voters:

I'm completely baffled by Turnip Head.

Macdougall's analysis today (tonight I guess) is fantastic, and makes me wonder why his name is in this pile. He has Nova as a town read now. It appears that his vote was in place for the same reason I ended up staying on Epi. The alternatives sucked. Still looks weird.

Sig is obviously town.

Mac has a pretty good case on Sloonei. It's the kind of case I like to see, based on motives rather than slips or 'weirdness.' I'd probably put a vote there RN if it was daytime.
Haven't read the Sloonei response, yet.

linki: Why is a long post suspicious?

Because it's MacDougall.

Macdougall makes long posts sometimes.

[Marmot]

Marmot's analysis is suspect because he clearly isn't reading the posts he is referencing in any context. He says Scotty "called [me] out for depending sig" when anyone with knowledge of the thread would know I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know why I said sig there, I meant Epignosis. I must have been distracted.


I did say that it was an ISO, so it inherently is read out of context.

[Marmot]

And again, to be clear: Colin wasn't an option because your objective was to break the tie?

My objective is always to vote somewhere it can make a difference. I don't think there is ever any value in town voting off wagon, no matter how much you might think every wagon is civ. I don't care about breaking the tie - I'd have voted my biggest suspect of the three even if it created a tie.

So you do it for the civ credibility?

[Marmot]

I wonder what Mac's read of me is if Sloonei is civilian.

[Sloonei]

I wonder what Mac's read of me is if Sloonei is civilian.

Am I civilian?

[Marmot]

I wonder what Mac's read of me is if Sloonei is civilian.

Am I civilian?

Even if I knew the answer it would be illegal for me to divulge it because rules.

[Scotty]

I wonder what Mac's read of me is if Sloonei is civilian.

Am I civilian?

Even if I knew the answer it would be illegal for me to divulge it because rules.

Are you Persian?

[Marmot]

Stop it you guys.

[Scotty]

Stop it you guys.

It’s ok if you are, I won’t tell

[Marmot]

I am the fucking Marmot of Byzantium.

[Scotty]

And Mac, I can get behind your Sloonei suspicion. Would you believe that if one of Sloonei and Marmot is bad then the other one is probably bad too?

[Marmot]

And Mac, I can get behind your Sloonei suspicion. Would you believe that if one of Sloonei and Marmot is bad then the other one is probably bad too?

You sound like a fellow with inside knowledge.

[Scotty]

I’m shit at reading Day 1’s so I’ll cede to the big boys in that analysis.

Dom, it’s funny how you listed basically everyone on the sig train as suspicious except you. I mean, I still think you are civ like I said before, it’s just funny

[Scotty]

And Mac, I can get behind your Sloonei suspicion. Would you believe that if one of Sloonei and Marmot is bad then the other one is probably bad too?

You sound like a fellow with inside knowledge.

Martha Stewart and I are good friends

[Sloonei]

And Mac, I can get behind your Sloonei suspicion. Would you believe that if one of Sloonei and Marmot is bad then the other one is probably bad too?

What parts of his case can you get behind?

[Dom]

What is nice?

MP's catchup strategy.

Marmot's analysis is suspect because he clearly isn't reading the posts he is referencing in any context. He says Scotty "called [me] out for depending sig" when anyone with knowledge of the thread would know I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know why I said sig there, I meant Epignosis. I must have been distracted.


I did say that it was an ISO, so it inherently is read out of context.

sig was defending epi.
I'm sorry, dude, but like there's lack of context because it's iso and then there's literally not knowing the basic facts of the thread.

I’m shit at reading Day 1’s so I’ll cede to the big boys in that analysis.

Dom, it’s funny how you listed basically everyone on the sig train as suspicious except you. I mean, I still think you are civ like I said before, it’s just funny

lol except my two biggest suspects are Colin and Sloonei
but tru

[Kylemii]

@Marmot why did you vote for me? you gave a reason but it didn't make sense in terms of this being a mafia game

For what reason did it make sense to you?

I explained my vote when I made the vote.

it didn't that's why i asked.

you said you didn't understand my questions i was asking golden, is it mafia behavior when i do things people don't unserstand

[Kylemii]

And I never read the townie handbook. I saw it on the shelf and it's like 800 pages and mostly incomprehensible.

Just had to say that this explains my playstyle so well; I read it cover to cover. Twice. Doesn't seem to do me much good.

real book, or extended metaphor?

[Kylemii]

while we're all comfy, [mention]Choutas[/mention] [mention]wolbre04[/mention] who are you? tell me about ur lives. who do you know

[Jackofhearts2005]

while we're all comfy, @Choutas @wolbre04 who are you? tell me about ur lives. who do you know

Ditto this.

Sorry @Mac (do the thing, mobile site). I haven’t gotten around to parsing your Sloonei case better. About to have my performance review. Then I gotta turn a subjective thing into robot language. Job interview tomorrow. I mean, right now I’d vote there but the case is hot and it sounds genuine but I know you’re looking for an evaluation, not a GTH and I just haven’t had the time.

Does anyone else have problems digesting big cases? I do really well grocking Rico/Wilgy style cases where it’s just quotes and a judgement like “all of this is distancing” or “these two posts contradict each other” etc. The more nuance, the more my brain wants to shut down. Which is weird cause I love mafia and thrive on gameified nuance like Pokemon or Twilight Struggle.

Maybe it’s a “too many variables” thing. X% chance this player is bad. This post represents distancing but only if under that X where suspect is actually distancing from someone who is bad. And then calculating on the fly reactions to certain posts based on alignment scenarios and trying to decide if meta fits or not and if Sloonei has had his coffee or saw a post.

None of this is helpful. Oh well. Review time.

[Scotty]

And Mac, I can get behind your Sloonei suspicion. Would you believe that if one of Sloonei and Marmot is bad then the other one is probably bad too?

What parts of his case can you get behind?

The parts where he’s certain you are bad.

I dunno. He seems like he has conviction and I dig conviction. I ain’t got a lot more to go on. I took a step back and don’t know anymore if I see Epi as bad. I can see Golden as civ too, but I’m more on neutral with him.

I’m more tonally reading you on my own as different than in GoC. But as with most big talkers, it might take some time to re-evaluate.

[quote=Kylemii post_id=433287 time=<a href="tel:1524679092">1524679092</a> user_id=289]
while we're all comfy, @Choutas @wolbre04 who are you? tell me about ur lives. who do you know

Ditto this.

Sorry @Mac (do the thing, mobile site). I haven’t gotten around to parsing your Sloonei case better. About to have my performance review. Then I gotta turn a subjective thing into robot language. Job interview tomorrow. I mean, right now I’d vote there but the case is hot and it sounds genuine but I know you’re looking for an evaluation, not a GTH and I just haven’t had the time.

Does anyone else have problems digesting big cases? I do really well grocking Rico/Wilgy style cases where it’s just quotes and a judgement like “all of this is distancing” or “these two posts contradict each other” etc. The more nuance, the more my brain wants to shut down. Which is weird cause I love mafia and thrive on gameified nuance like Pokemon or Twilight Struggle.

Maybe it’s a “too many variables” thing. X% chance this player is bad. This post represents distancing but only if under that X where suspect is actually distancing from someone who is bad. And then calculating on the fly reactions to certain posts based on alignment scenarios and trying to decide if meta fits or not and if Sloonei has had his coffee or saw a post.

None of this is helpful. Oh well. Review time.
[/quote]
I do find it harder to break down big cases. A lot of that, for me, is sigtibg through and responding to each subquite on mobile. Mobile makes it not worth the effort to get involved. Formatting is not my specialty on phone, which is why you’ll often see shitty Berlin Walls of text when I post

[Scotty]

Oh, also fuck citing multiple quotes on this site. Something changed in the past year- it didn’t used to be this buggy

[Marmot]

Marmot's analysis is suspect because he clearly isn't reading the posts he is referencing in any context. He says Scotty "called [me] out for depending sig" when anyone with knowledge of the thread would know I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know why I said sig there, I meant Epignosis. I must have been distracted.


I did say that it was an ISO, so it inherently is read out of context.

sig was defending epi.
I'm sorry, dude, but like there's lack of context because it's iso and then there's literally not knowing the basic facts of the thread.

At the time I thought dog = Dom before Scotty corrected me and apparently all typos = sig.

[Golden]

Alright so, it was nice to have two days off to start this game, but now I'm back to being extremely busy, so my posting is going to go way down.

I don't have time to catch up on the thread - today at all probably.

[Marmot]

And yes I was out of context. I haven't read like the first 700 posts of this thread front-to-back, so I'm not full up to date on what happened there.

[Dom]

Marmot's analysis is suspect because he clearly isn't reading the posts he is referencing in any context. He says Scotty "called [me] out for depending sig" when anyone with knowledge of the thread would know I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know why I said sig there, I meant Epignosis. I must have been distracted.


I did say that it was an ISO, so it inherently is read out of context.

sig was defending epi.
I'm sorry, dude, but like there's lack of context because it's iso and then there's literally not knowing the basic facts of the thread.

At the time I thought dog = Dom before Scotty corrected me and apparently all typos = sig.

Well Dom didn't do much defending of Epi.

And yes I was out of context. I haven't read like the first 700 posts of this thread front-to-back, so I'm not full up to date on what happened there.

You seem rather unconcerned with getting things accurate, only getting things.

Which is something I'd expect out of a baddie.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'll likely be a bit late with the night post (30-60 minutes). The deadlines remain the same though.

[Marmot]

Marmot's analysis is suspect because he clearly isn't reading the posts he is referencing in any context. He says Scotty "called [me] out for depending sig" when anyone with knowledge of the thread would know I did nothing of the sort.

I don't know why I said sig there, I meant Epignosis. I must have been distracted.


I did say that it was an ISO, so it inherently is read out of context.

sig was defending epi.
I'm sorry, dude, but like there's lack of context because it's iso and then there's literally not knowing the basic facts of the thread.

At the time I thought dog = Dom before Scotty corrected me and apparently all typos = sig.

Well Dom didn't do much defending of Epi.

And yes I was out of context. I haven't read like the first 700 posts of this thread front-to-back, so I'm not full up to date on what happened there.

You seem rather unconcerned with getting things accurate, only getting things.

Which is something I'd expect out of a baddie.

My post wasn't about Dom, it was about Scotty. I thought you were related, but you weren't.

Your accusation is wild. You seem more concerned with framing me as a baddie than helping me get it right.

[Dom]

Says the person who hasn't read the thread.

[Marmot]

Says the person who hasn't read the thread.

How are those two things related?

[Dom]

How would you have any idea if I'm actually pushing your lynch if you haven't read my posts enough to know who I did and did not defend?

[Marmot]

How would you have any idea if I'm actually pushing your lynch if you haven't read my posts enough to know who I did and did not defend?

I didn't really read the beginning of the thread. I've read everything since.

Not reading the beginning of the thread =/= not reading the thread at all.

[Dom]

[ColinIsCool]

Catch-up time.

[VOTE: Sig] aubergine

[this part]If sig's bad, Colin is bad too.[/right here]

explanation?

Colin's post, boiled down

"I have a reason not to vote nova and a reason not to vote epi and... err... there's one specific post about sig that isn't bad and then nothing changed my mind... so I'll vote off wagon"

All while sig is one vote behind.

Sorry it was Colin, not Scotty. Yes very bad look for Colin.

It's a bad look to vote for somebody I'm suspicious of, as opposed to jumping on a wagon I don't believe in (which, by the way, turned out to be a civ)? Golden's paraphrase of my post here is disingenuous and distorts the character of my message.

If sig is bad, Colin is bad. If sig is good ... well, guess Colin is still bad?

[ColinIsCool]

Read Golden's case against me on the last page, and his posts that followed the lynch, and ask yourself, "Does this [the case against Colin] make any sense?"

I'm interested in hearing your answers.

It does make some sense. You voting off-wagon while 3 people are almost tied for the lynch and 1 vote can change everything is suspicious to say the least. It's the bad kind of suspicious.

It doesn't matter how weak the cases against Sig, Epi and me are, I don't believe that after all that happened today you didn't have any read on us three. In the case, you read both 3 of us as Town, you could have voted for your weakest Town read to try to save the two others that you read strongly as Town. You didn't even attempt that and just took the easy way out.

So yeah, you voting off wagon in such a crucial time is bad and Golden's case has merits. This is something a player with inside information (scum) would do since they would know who would flip Town and thus not participate so late in a mislynch to avoid scrutinization.

So I avoided scrutinization by doing something that is more likely to get scrutinized? Not following here. Isn't it scummier to just jump on an easy wagon and parrot some BS reason that somebody else said than to actually try and hold someone different up to a light?

[ColinIsCool]

Colin, put yourself aside and ask yourself if my case makes sense without you in it.

I don't think it does. I didn't consider that my vote was suspicious at all before I cast it, actually, but in thinking about it, I think the other scenario I outlined in my last post would be more indicative of scum play if I saw it in someone else.

[Scotty]

I would say that analyzing day 1 votes with someone like Colin is most helpful if we had a confirmed scum, but what do I know.

Regardless, I don’t view Colin as guilty looking as some people do.

[Choutas]

while we're all comfy, @Choutas @wolbre04 who are you? tell me about ur lives. who do you know

I am a horrible person overall. My life changes rapidly like the tide and I seriously want to win this game because I'm a very competitive person because frankly I have issues.

[MacDougall]

Catch-up time.

[VOTE: Sig] aubergine

[this part]If sig's bad, Colin is bad too.[/right here]

explanation?

Colin's post, boiled down

"I have a reason not to vote nova and a reason not to vote epi and... err... there's one specific post about sig that isn't bad and then nothing changed my mind... so I'll vote off wagon"

All while sig is one vote behind.

Sorry it was Colin, not Scotty. Yes very bad look for Colin.

It's a bad look to vote for somebody I'm suspicious of, as opposed to jumping on a wagon I don't believe in (which, by the way, turned out to be a civ)? Golden's paraphrase of my post here is disingenuous and distorts the character of my message.

If sig is bad, Colin is bad. If sig is good ... well, guess Colin is still bad?

Yes Colin. You threw your vote away when it mattered because you know who the Mafia are.

[ColinIsCool]

And again, to be clear: Colin wasn't an option because your objective was to break the tie?

My objective is always to vote somewhere it can make a difference. I don't think there is ever any value in town voting off wagon, no matter how much you might think every wagon is civ. I don't care about breaking the tie - I'd have voted my biggest suspect of the three even if it created a tie.

I think there is a difference in game philosophy coming to light here. Voting off wagon has its benefits and I don't want to spell all of them out necessarily, but one is to apply pressure. I felt that lunalee's conduct was the most suspicious of anyone I'd ISO'd that day and certainly more suspicious than the others. And I would rather put pressure on someone who I think may be scum than kill someone who I don't see a case for. Sorry if you think that's bad play, but that's how it is and how it's gonna be.

[Choutas]

Do I have to read the whole thread to be able to contribute?
Someone give me the short story.

[novaselinenever]

Read Golden's case against me on the last page, and his posts that followed the lynch, and ask yourself, "Does this [the case against Colin] make any sense?"

I'm interested in hearing your answers.

It does make some sense. You voting off-wagon while 3 people are almost tied for the lynch and 1 vote can change everything is suspicious to say the least. It's the bad kind of suspicious.

It doesn't matter how weak the cases against Sig, Epi and me are, I don't believe that after all that happened today you didn't have any read on us three. In the case, you read both 3 of us as Town, you could have voted for your weakest Town read to try to save the two others that you read strongly as Town. You didn't even attempt that and just took the easy way out.

So yeah, you voting off wagon in such a crucial time is bad and Golden's case has merits. This is something a player with inside information (scum) would do since they would know who would flip Town and thus not participate so late in a mislynch to avoid scrutinization.

So I avoided scrutinization by doing something that is more likely to get scrutinized? Not following here. Isn't it scummier to just jump on an easy wagon and parrot some BS reason that somebody else said than to actually try and hold someone different up to a light?

It's not more likely to get scrutinized since the consequences are less important. You weren't trying to hold someone different up to a light since at the time of your vote that lynch wasn't going anywhere. You completely avoided participating in who gets lynched even though you had a choice between 3 people. Or did you read the 3 of us as Town ?

Also, what is your post trying to do here ? Are you using hypotheticals of what is scummier to defend yourself ?

[novaselinenever]

I would say that analyzing day 1 votes with someone like Colin is most helpful if we had a confirmed scum, but what do I know.

Regardless, I don’t view Colin as guilty looking as some people do.

What do you mean by someone like Colin ?

[MacDougall]

Hey @MacDougall what voice should I be reading sloonei's posts in? It's like a rollercoaster

An evil one.

Sloonei's defense is okay if not a little over the top sounding. Basically he rationalised his play exactly like I figured he would so it changes nothing about the read but there's nothing in it to object to specifically.

[ColinIsCool]

Yes Colin. You threw your vote away when it mattered because you know who the Mafia are.

Nope. I have suspects though.

[MacDougall]

I just saw some super weird mobile layout for a sec.