The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote: Hmmm you're shifty.

In what context am I shifty?

sprityo wrote:When is Scotty not shifty? Lmao

sig wrote:Okay after thinking about it more I guess not discussing locations isn't necessarily suspicious mafia behavior. Having said this I don't like that Zebra is saying me discussing locations is anti-town I think she is saying this for nefarious purposes.

That's not what I'm saying though. If you just wanted to discuss locations then I wouldn't think of that as anti-town, but it was you trying to urge people into discussing it that I suspected as having ulterior motives. Here's the post that really pinged me:

sig wrote:We are allowed to discuses the map options, but it might not benefit certain players. I think some of the messages are nonsensical while others might offer clues. Either way I think it is a neat addition. The question is who will be hurt from discussing messages? The mafia will be talking about it in BTSC so I'd think the civs are most likely to be hurt from not discussing it.

What I don't get is why you said that the question is who will be hurt from discussing messages...and you go on to immediately advocate discussing them as if that was a rhetorical question that you somehow already knew the answer to. I'm not convinced that you felt that the mafia having BTSC with each other is a good enough reason to assume that what Epignosis said can be overlooked and that the civs will be hurt from not discussing whatever information we've individually gained. So it's not that you wanted to discuss locations that I feel is anti-town, it's that I don't think your reasoning for wanting to do so was genuine.

linki - I don't think you're shifty, Scotty. You might be bad though.

DharmaHelper wrote:The url also doesn't end in a .jpg or .png or .gif :P

derp

Yeah.

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:Okay after thinking about it more I guess not discussing locations isn't necessarily suspicious mafia behavior. Having said this I don't like that Zebra is saying me discussing locations is anti-town I think she is saying this for nefarious purposes.

That's not what I'm saying though. If you just wanted to discuss locations then I wouldn't think of that as anti-town, but it was you trying to urge people into discussing it that I suspected as having ulterior motives. Here's the post that really pinged me:

sig wrote:We are allowed to discuses the map options, but it might not benefit certain players. I think some of the messages are nonsensical while others might offer clues. Either way I think it is a neat addition. The question is who will be hurt from discussing messages? The mafia will be talking about it in BTSC so I'd think the civs are most likely to be hurt from not discussing it.

What I don't get is why you said that the question is who will be hurt from discussing messages...and you go on to immediately advocate discussing them as if that was a rhetorical question that you somehow already knew the answer to. I'm not convinced that you felt that the mafia having BTSC with each other is a good enough reason to assume that what Epignosis said can be overlooked and that the civs will be hurt from not discussing whatever information we've individually gained. So it's not that you wanted to discuss locations that I feel is anti-town, it's that I don't think your reasoning for wanting to do so was genuine.

linki - I don't think you're shifty, Scotty. You might be bad though.

If you were pinged by that second quote from sig above why did you share information with him about your location?

To see if he would take the bait.

Did he?

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Are you suspicious of Glorfindel SVS?

I am not sure, tbh. I was just intrigued by his reaction to having read the thread. There was alot of tunnel type stuff and some quite a bit of tension at some points going on, and he only noted one thing, and his opinion on that seemed a bit one dimensional.

His reply was very well crafted; and tbh, it felt kind of *crafted* to me, if you get my feeling~ designed to appease. I can't be anywhere near sure at this point; he is unfailingly polite and I don't know him well, so have no basis of comparison. SO my initial thought, intrigued, best fits my feelings at this time, I think.

Do you have an opinion?

You did call his reply well-couched, which I took as a misspelling of well-coached. What did you mean by that?

Just a very carefully worded, nicely positioned reply, but it is a more precise meaning; I like big words as much as the next person. In an earlier post i used the word "lambasted". Perhaps I am over compensating formy atrocious typing, lol.

Although let me ask you, and Dom as well, really, since he thought I was saying that fora totally different reason; if I HAD been saying that (and I was not, to be clear) what would that have meant to you? Since that was the main point you took away from that discussion.

I just would have disagreed that he received help with the post because of the time.

Scotty wrote:

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

#1. Which players' absence are unsettling to you? Do you think they're bad hiding in a chat room? Do you think they don't know the game's started?

#2. You, in a later post, asked Glorfindel to share their thoughts on who might be bad, but I don't see you offering the same specific opinions. Can you?

#1: as of now, only lovedelic hasn't posted. 4 people have 1 post. No one in particular is unsettling individually, but my stance has always been to vote for no/low posters day 1 if no big suspicions jump out to me. I think that we've had 72 hours in which to check in at least, and to not even comment is a bad omen I feel. If you want, I can provide my philosophy on why I vote no/low posters.

#2: nothing is particularly jumping out to me. I have an eye on Glorfindel though. I made my post about the niceties of gameplay and Glorf's post fits in this case. SVS suspicion of him for offering a careful and guarded reply seems a little too eager to please. Is that indicative of badness? Maybe not. The other times I remember playing with Glorf he has been rather polite and stilted no matter his alignment. I am rather wary of the sentiment though.

As for MP, he hasn't posted anything since I started suspecting him, and my gut read still stands that I think he is at least not doggie

So.... do you wanna vote MP or not?



Mac, why did you say Scotty was shifty? Highly interested here.

Sorsha wrote:Did he?

I'm not sure.

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Are you suspicious of Glorfindel SVS?

I am not sure, tbh. I was just intrigued by his reaction to having read the thread. There was alot of tunnel type stuff and some quite a bit of tension at some points going on, and he only noted one thing, and his opinion on that seemed a bit one dimensional.

His reply was very well crafted; and tbh, it felt kind of *crafted* to me, if you get my feeling~ designed to appease. I can't be anywhere near sure at this point; he is unfailingly polite and I don't know him well, so have no basis of comparison. SO my initial thought, intrigued, best fits my feelings at this time, I think.

Do you have an opinion?

You did call his reply well-couched, which I took as a misspelling of well-coached. What did you mean by that?

Just a very carefully worded, nicely positioned reply, but it is a more precise meaning; I like big words as much as the next person. In an earlier post i used the word "lambasted". Perhaps I am over compensating formy atrocious typing, lol.

Although let me ask you, and Dom as well, really, since he thought I was saying that fora totally different reason; if I HAD been saying that (and I was not, to be clear) what would that have meant to you? Since that was the main point you took away from that discussion.

I just would have disagreed that he received help with the post because of the time.

Scotty wrote:

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

#1. Which players' absence are unsettling to you? Do you think they're bad hiding in a chat room? Do you think they don't know the game's started?

#2. You, in a later post, asked Glorfindel to share their thoughts on who might be bad, but I don't see you offering the same specific opinions. Can you?

#1: as of now, only lovedelic hasn't posted. 4 people have 1 post. No one in particular is unsettling individually, but my stance has always been to vote for no/low posters day 1 if no big suspicions jump out to me. I think that we've had 72 hours in which to check in at least, and to not even comment is a bad omen I feel. If you want, I can provide my philosophy on why I vote no/low posters.

#2: nothing is particularly jumping out to me. I have an eye on Glorfindel though. I made my post about the niceties of gameplay and Glorf's post fits in this case. SVS suspicion of him for offering a careful and guarded reply seems a little too eager to please. Is that indicative of badness? Maybe not. The other times I remember playing with Glorf he has been rather polite and stilted no matter his alignment. I am rather wary of the sentiment though.

As for MP, he hasn't posted anything since I started suspecting him, and my gut read still stands that I think he is at least not doggie

So.... do you wanna vote MP or not?



Mac, why did you say Scotty was shifty? Highly interested here.

No I won't vote on a gut read. I like more concrete info.

I am also very curious about how I am shifty.

DharmaHelper wrote:Also yes before you ask Enrique I am of the opinion that, should we lynch an independent, it would be just as beneficial as having lynched a mafia because they are both enemy factions. I wouldn't prioritize "hunting" for either, however, given that (once again due to the size of the mafia in this set up) the in-thread tells are likely to be the same sort of things.

What if I claim neutral?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Also yes before you ask Enrique I am of the opinion that, should we lynch an independent, it would be just as beneficial as having lynched a mafia because they are both enemy factions. I wouldn't prioritize "hunting" for either, however, given that (once again due to the size of the mafia in this set up) the in-thread tells are likely to be the same sort of things.

What if I claim neutral?

a2thezebra wrote:

Equivocate wrote:But I've reviewed a lot of his posts and I'm not seeing anything damning, at least not at the moment.

You don't think him calling for open discussion about the map when the host himself discouraged any discussion about it isn't at least a little bit damning? You don't think him suspecting people for not wanting to discuss what information they have found isn't damning?

Hypothetically, but I'm attributing it more to his passion/tendency to be overzealous at times. What I believe, and this has been a main point of discussion for a little while now so it's hardly a fringe opinion, is that it may prove more beneficial to look at the less active players. While I can see some validity in your points, and can somewhat understand why some are suspecting Sig, it just seems a little "easy" to go after him.

as opposed to the less active players?

a2thezebra wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Did he?

I'm not sure.

I don't believe this I think you are backtracking and trying to come up with a "good" reason for why you gave out info after getting called out for doing it. Your responses regarding this seems disingenuous as is your attempt to cast shade/suspicion on me.

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Did he?

I'm not sure.

I don't believe this I think you are backtracking and trying to come up with a "good" reason for why you gave out info after getting called out for doing it. Your responses regarding this seems disingenuous as is your attempt to cast shade/suspicion on me.

How am I backtracking? I don't care if you think my reason for giving info was good or not. I'm not casting "shade" on you, I'm saying what I think. What makes you think it is disingenuous? Do you think my suspicion of you has been disingenuous from the get-go or is it only now becoming disingenuous? Please elaborate.

Enrique wrote:GTH sprit, who would you vote for if the deadline was in 5 minutes?

Can't tell if this is "go to hell" or "good to hear"

I'll assume the latter since otherwise I would vote you for being rude to me



No, but I guess I would pick Matt? Like no one else really caught my attention except for him and zebra on that ONE thing. But that's just a small scuffle in an avalanche of posts.

I would be fine lynching someone who has contributed nothing at all, to be honest.

Gun to head, sprit

Zebra isn't backtracking or making stuff up, her plan just wasn't very good to begin with.

a2thezebra wrote:

sig wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Did he?

I'm not sure.

I don't believe this I think you are backtracking and trying to come up with a "good" reason for why you gave out info after getting called out for doing it. Your responses regarding this seems disingenuous as is your attempt to cast shade/suspicion on me.

How am I backtracking? I don't care if you think my reason for giving info was good or not. I'm not casting "shade" on you, I'm saying what I think. What makes you think it is disingenuous? Do you think my suspicion of you has been disingenuous from the get-go or is it only now becoming disingenuous? Please elaborate.

I think it is disingenuous that you didn't think we should give info, going so far to say I looked scummy for trying to get info from people, then gave out info, only to later say you are trying to trap me and that is why you gave info. However, you aren't sure if your trap worked? It just seems disingenuous. Backtracking might have been the wrong word usage, but again you said you wouldn't give info, gave it, then said it was all done to entrap me?

linki: GTH = Gun to Head so it is off the top of your head without any thinking making a read. So if I said GTH how do you read me, you'd say the first thing that popped into your head.

linki 2: aww Enrique explained first. Okay maybe not, but I wasn't believing she had this plan to begin with so suddenly having a plan seemed like backtracking/disingenuous

sig therems nothing disingenious in taking the hosts' word that it's a bad idea. Zebra wanted to do this all along, I saw it coming from a mile away, but the execution wasn't great and then she just gave it away for some reason.

She's been arguing against info sharing all along. No other explanation ever made sense.

Enrique wrote:Gun to head, sprit

Zebra isn't backtracking or making stuff up, her plan just wasn't very good to begin with.

What do you think her plan was though?

Enrique wrote:sig therems nothing disingenious in taking the hosts' word that it's a bad idea. Zebra wanted to do this all along, I saw it coming from a mile away, but the execution wasn't great and then she just gave it away for some reason.

She's been arguing against info sharing all along. No other explanation ever made sense.

Which is why I said she was being disingenuous though I guess that explanation makes more sense. Why though?

Why are we all assuming that my plan isn't still in effect?

Let alone what exactly it is?

S~V~S wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Are you suspicious of Glorfindel SVS?

I am not sure, tbh. I was just intrigued by his reaction to having read the thread. There was alot of tunnel type stuff and some quite a bit of tension at some points going on, and he only noted one thing, and his opinion on that seemed a bit one dimensional.

His reply was very well crafted; and tbh, it felt kind of *crafted* to me, if you get my feeling~ designed to appease. I can't be anywhere near sure at this point; he is unfailingly polite and I don't know him well, so have no basis of comparison. SO my initial thought, intrigued, best fits my feelings at this time, I think.

Do you have an opinion?

That's funny, because that's kinda how I felt with a post you made just before this one I'll spoiler the post:
I know that carefully crafting posts and appeasing others are things that are in YOUR baddie wheelhouse SVS, as opposed to just winging it as a civ, so maybe it's genuine for you to call Glorfy out on that... but I think it's noteworthy that those same things could be said of your post. That said, you defended my honor in that post which you didn't have to do (and also appeased Mac's gut ) so if your intention was to appease me, you have mostly succeeded

I agree with you that baddie Matt lurked in the shadows most of the time he was bad in GoC, but I also agree with Glorfindel that there's something different abut his behavior here. Matt seemed genuinely frustrated and upset at both Zebra and the players not agreeing with him, and he let that seep into his tone more than I'm accustomed to seeing from him. I don't know what it means about his role, if anything at all, but it's a side of Matt I haven't seen before. He's usually so happy-go-lucky.

Other thoughts:

I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all.

I could not disagree more with sig about Zebra; I don't see how her backtracking fits a mafia agenda at all. Why wouldn't she, as mafia, just stick to her guns on this issue? I don't understand her motives for suddenly changing her mind, but for all we know she fed you bullshit intel to see if you would follow up on it or something. I have no idea what her plan is, but tone-wise Zebra is one of my strongest civvie reads, and just because you don't understand her doesn't mean she's bad.

DrWilgy seems to be throwing us a bite sized nugget every once in a while but otherwise isn't very involved. Just something I noticed. bea didn't post a catch-up last night or otherwise tell us she'd be around later, so she feels a little lurky, and I can't put my finger on why but her responses to Mac earlier seemed a bit off for her.

Nerulunar hasn't posted today, so this is a reminder that I'm still suspicious of him.

idk zebra do you actually want me to discuss it

I don't like WIFOM, I'd sooner pretend this whole situation doesn't exist.

the real twist here: svs and glorf are ghostwriting for each other

Scotty wrote: No I won't vote on a gut read. I like more concrete info.

I am also very curious about how I am shifty.

ok so....
Who then, do you want to lynch?
None of the low posters in particular are interesting according to you.
And you won't MP on a gut read-- you need concrete evidence (which you don't have against the low posters)...

So....what do you wanna do?

@Zebra Oh yes your plan. I was tone reading you as civ but all this talk of a secret plan doesn't seem civvie to me at all. Having said that I'm like Switzerland the land of bank accounts (I wish) chocolate and not going to war, so lets not engage in a wall post war.


Besides me who else are you pinged by?

linki: Enrique how would you discuss it? You obviously have an idea of what she is doing, but there is no way you know for sure unless you meant for that to be in BTSC and posted it here by mistake? :P (last part was a joke)

sig wrote:@Zebra Oh yes your plan. I was tone reading you as civ but all this talk of a secret plan doesn't seem civvie to me at all. Having said that I'm like Switzerland the land of bank accounts (I wish) chocolate and not going to war, so lets not engage in a wall post war.


Besides me who else are you pinged by?

linki: Enrique how would you discuss it? You obviously have an idea of what she is doing, but there is no way you know for sure unless you meant for that to be in BTSC and posted it here by mistake? :P (last part was a joke)

What do you think zebras plan is? Do you think she understood you 100% when you posted this:

sig wrote:I could discuss it Zebra yes and I plan to, but I don't want to be one of the only players to do this.

Basically someone has stolen money from Wayne Enterprise (ooops someone is getting firrred) and Fox is on the case. Top suspect is Hugo Strange and a possibly location which isn't a map location. So really no information here at all however, this doesn't mean other locations have no information.

I think the mafia would be more likely to vote for two different locations then just one.

Because I don't think she did.

I think her plan is to give either real or fake info that she got in an attempt to frame me/trip me up. From the limited information people have given I do think this all connects whether it give game knowledge.

sig wrote:I think her plan is to give either real or fake info that she got in an attempt to frame me/trip me up. From the limited information people have given I do think this all connects whether it give game knowledge.

Judging by Typhoony's reaction to what zebra said I think what she told you is true.

I figured her goal was to make you go somewhere or maybe use that to try to figure out where the money went. Who knows. But the info was always faake.

(or was it?)

Enrique wrote: I figured her goal was to make you go somewhere or maybe use that to try to figure out where the money went. Who knows. But the info was always faake.

(or was it?)

Why would you think it is fake or not how would you know this at all?

and yes I saw the tiny text I don't see why you'd assume it could be fake though?

Sorsha wrote:

sig wrote:I think her plan is to give either real or fake info that she got in an attempt to frame me/trip me up. From the limited information people have given I do think this all connects whether it give game knowledge.

Judging by Typhoony's reaction to what zebra said I think what she told you is true.

Agreed.

Also @Enrique what civ motives would there be for her to force me to go to a certain location? That seems more like a negative trap role.

i have no idea sig i really dont care for this topic

So... I'm swamped beyond belief and there's no way I'll make it before EoD. I'm still on page 11 when I last posted. Sorry everyone.

I know this is very unlike me, but I don't have any remotely firm leads on anyone from what I can recall, since the only player I had thought even seemed slightly suspicious (zebra) no longer seemed suspicious to me after I talked with her, so... yeah. I randomized among "low posters" (i.e., those with less than 5 posts) and got TheFloyd73.

Hopefully I can catch up and get back into this game fully by this weekend.

MovingPictures07 wrote:So... I'm swamped beyond belief and there's no way I'll make it before EoD. I'm still on page 11 when I last posted. Sorry everyone.

I know this is very unlike me, but I don't have any remotely firm leads on anyone from what I can recall, since the only player I had thought even seemed slightly suspicious (zebra) no longer seemed suspicious to me after I talked with her, so... yeah. I randomized among "low posters" (i.e., those with less than 5 posts) and got TheFloyd73.

Hopefully I can catch up and get back into this game fully by this weekend.

Enrique wrote:i have no idea sig i really dont care for this topic

Why not?

I don't care for it either, I don't think it's going to lead to anything worth voting for.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't care for it either, I don't think it's going to lead to anything worth voting for.

I don't think it will either. I think zebra was trying to discredit the info that sig has (whether she did or not remains to be seen) but that doesn't mean zebra is bad.

I do think this should be taken as a lesson to zip it about what we learn at our locations though.

a2thezebra wrote:Why are we all assuming that my plan isn't still in effect?

Saying things like that make you seem disingenuous whether you are or not. I myself don't have any logical reason to suspect you, but your setting bait for Sig and talking about a secret plan and such kind of engenders a vague feeling of shadiness to me. I know it's more an issue of playstyle than anything you've done, but I can see why Sig might have a sense of you as being duplicitous.

I don't actually suspect anyone involved in that debacle, and still haven't found anyone I suspect. I keep coming to the conclusion that everyone is probably civ.

Ugh. You guys. It was my first day back to work and already I'm dying. 1000 lunch. On wed. 5.99 at a time. Each day is only going to get worse till Sunday is over.

My brain glossed over some of the things I've read over the past 6 oages, but there was low poster talk. For me, I depends on the poster and the contributions and all sorts of things. I think it is more relevant say day 4 than day 1 tbh. That's just me.

I am in the do not talk about the apartment camp. When crafty hosts are that clear before we even saw what the map was/could do, it gives me more than enough reason to refrain from talking about it too.much. then things got blurry. Sorry.

I have to get up in the wee hours of the morning and do this all over again. I will try to have something more than me just summing up what I think I've read soon.

I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

I have to catch up on a lot of things. So. I thought I'd throw out my biggest suspects so far and see if anything changes when I read up the stuff I've missed.

Matt - Despite his claim that he is not tunnelly, and it might be fair he hasn't focussed exclusively on one person, I find his focus on zebra to be quite tunnelly, and some of the specific things he said in that whole exchange did not ring true to me (like misrepresenting zebras suspicion of him).

MP - I have found his tone in the early running to be different. Possible 'stressed' different, but he seems less tolerant of ideas and even of conduct similar to his own (and by tolerant, I mean open-minded to it being civ behaviour). I remember finding MPs reads in Star Wars suspicious... like it wasn't his genuine townie self, seeming helpful as usual but just a little more closed minded. He sounded like his town self, and I kept gth reading him town, and as others made persuasive points I felt they might be right but didn't want to believe it. Now I feel like I'm seeing that same MP again.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Consider what people usually get lynched for on day zero. Show me one example of a successful day 1 lynch that came from what you would consider more slam dunk cases than what we have here?

Ha, you reminded me of a game on STV where we successfully nailed the entire baddie team (there was only one) to the wall on day one. That was fun!

In all seriousness though, I'm not going to vote for someone because you think its the best we've got. I'd only vote for it if I feel its the best I've got. Right now, I feel much more confident in my reads on Matt and MP than your read on TH. I wouldn't lynch based on that one thing alone.

DharmaHelper wrote:Nice what?

Ass

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Consider what people usually get lynched for on day zero. Show me one example of a successful day 1 lynch that came from what you would consider more slam dunk cases than what we have here?

Ha, you reminded me of a game on STV where we successfully nailed the entire baddie team (there was only one) to the wall on day one. That was fun!

In all seriousness though, I'm not going to vote for someone because you think its the best we've got. I'd only vote for it if I feel its the best I've got. Right now, I feel much more confident in my reads on Matt and MP than your read on TH. I wouldn't lynch based on that one thing alone.

Okay we have a new king of fuck mountain.

MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

I think you've raised some good points. As a typically low poster myself, I'm wary of anyone who uses "not talking" as a reason to vote someone. In my experience, a player who has teammates is more likely to contribute, so I don't see the logic here in going after low posters. Any ping at all is better than no ping (which is what you have when they literally haven't said anything).

I will be at work all day tomorrow, so I can't check in again before the poll closes. I'll go ahead and *vote Scotty*