The Syndicate

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:good question!

espers

Thanks.

Now another question. I got it that you thought DH wasn't suspicious. But espers was your number 2 suspect, and almost got voted. Don't you think you could have prevented a civ lynch if you had voted espers instead? Your late Cookie vote was unlikely to have any effect in the lynch, I think.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think we should lynch LoRab tomorrow.

Metalmarsh, I read what Rico said about Lorab but I'd like to know what you've seen that makes you want to lynch her next. If you did an iso already on her just tell me.

I meant to say something yesterday, but was thwarted by unforeseen circumstances. Her votes are opportunistic.

Day 1, she voted G-Man even though she also found Long Con suspicious. That itself is not suspicious, but her case on G-man looks insincere. I think she is trying to paint him as a baddie for something that doesn't look bad. Her reason for voting G-man was that he said "his role is not harmful to civilians".

Day 2, she backed off LC for some reason. Then she said both myself and Golden look bad. In the end, she votes for Golden for saying "I am an important civ". Sound familar? Also, she played musical votes at the end of the day phase, directing and orchestrating the end of the day votes to create a situation where she could force a tie.

Day 3, she votes G-Man again, defaulting to her Day 1 suspicion. Again, I don't like the case, and there's the fact that she quickly backed off of the Long Con suspicion. Why the tunneling of G-Man?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

juliets wrote:DDL, could you just answer a couple of questions about this post?

First, you mention the vote on Scotty being what spurred you to do an analysis of the posts. Did you end up with any conclusions about that vote? Do you still find it suspicious and if so why?

Yes. I thought it was too sudden, and the reason didn't seem really strong for me (something about him not openly voicing suspicions, which I believe shouldn't be a mandatory thing). I wasn't particulary thinking of Scotty as a baddie candidate.

juliets wrote:Second, what do you mean by "the other time I caught the godfather"? Also, what progression are you referring to when you say his vote for Cookie had a "similar progression".

A game I played on NF. I did a similar vote analysis of one player I was suspecting, and concluded he was mafia. When he died, he flipped godfather.

Though the son of a bitch managed to get me lynched first.

G-Man wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:At the very least, I liked image-posting G-Man better.

Dear Cookie, Elohcin, espers, LoRab, MetalMarsh89, and MovingPictures07...

Elohcin wrote:So I got this confusing info PM. I know I cannot say what it said but I worked damn hard to get the info by doing a stupid maze and I didn't even understand the info.

Russtifinko wrote:

Scotty wrote:Where I left off, but with a few more days of info..
Some thoughts before I go too in depth over the next day:

-Elo is reading slightly civ for me right now. Whereas Day 1 was full of shenanigans and Jesus toast all around, I'm not convinced right now that she would have had a hand in Sloonei's death.
-I think several people have been on to something with the LoRab reads. I'll be looking thoroughly into her tomorrow. But she has had her blinders on GMan for a full 3 cycles and I don't particularly find GMan threatening at the moment.
-Cookie is another one that strikes me as particularly blendy and most likely bad.
-MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
-LC The NK of LC is interesting because he was HARDLY the most civ-sounding person here. Makes me wonder what strategy mafia are playing with at this juncture.

LC's last reads for reference:

Long Con wrote:LoRab
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
MovingPictures07
espers
Russtifinko
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
juliets
Ricochet
G-Man
Metalmarsh89
Long Con

Note that Bass and LoRab are not exclusively mafia-reads for LC, but for others as well, so I don't see the likelihood of a frame job. Something to think about. Going to look an see if I (we) can't find clues into what would inspire a dead LC..

I think the evidence is right here. Third night in a row someone's killed off the top civ read in a rainbow list. Could be we're looking at baddie(s) who hate rainbow lists, or someone just thinks it's hilarious and is trolling us.

Russtifinko wrote:Going to work now. However, I definitely will be active today. Some players I'm considering (in no particular order):

espers, Cookie, LoRab G-Man, MP <---Some of these are VERY mild suspicions,I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Players I probably would not vote toy (barring drastic changes):

Elo, MM, Bass

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I read through Lorab and saw what G-man said that started that whole debate. When I read G-Man's response I immediately thought indy but in no way did I think baddie. The other thing I noted is unless I have not read the roles correctly the Nite Owl II could only detect once and the Night Owl I can only detect once. That just doesn't seem like enough of a threat for someone to be addressing the LD by putting a checkable statement out there this early. On her comment on the Golden comment, I am more surprised that Golden said he was an important civ in the the thread. I do somewhat see her reasoning why that might have made Golden bad - otherwise why would he risk making himself a target. Unlike Lorab though i cannot say that most of the time I hear people say this they are baddies. People say all kinds of things when they are desperate. I feel like I must mention though that in games I've played with her Lorab marches to her own drummer and like she says concentrates on detail. I have to decide if disagreeing with Lorab equates with suspecting her of being bad. Please tell me if you think I missed anything that would affect my vote about Lorab.

I have a very long doctors appointment today and so will not be back on until later today. I will continue reading when I get back because as I understand it we have a vote tonight. I feel like I've got Day 1 type reactions to people (not feeling sure, tentative) but give me time to get my legs under me.

Ricochet wrote:Welcome, TinyBubbles. And welcome back, Scotty, I don't think I've said it yet.

I want to study and jog during the next two-three hours, so posting a first half of updated reads, resuming afterwards.

Bass - Bye Bass. His form was clearly dipping to absenteeism since D1 and LC's death has him in sight for suspicion (or meant to paint him as such), but I think I'll wrap up his game read with more pluses than minuses, so slight civ read. Looking forward to see how TinyBubbles evolves

-----

Cookie has had a very bad D3 endgame, so it's only natural to suspect her after that chain of events: she said she's working on the suspects list, she nominated DDL (based on something from his arguing with Golden on D2 and about his stance on late votes, but Cookie's suspicion on it reads to me a bit like waffle, frankly) and espers (for his D1 vote, not his posts) and exonerated Eloh; she asks why DDL reads DH as bad, but then, roughly 10 minutes later, decides to vote DH because of DDL - quite the adjustment for a player constantly having a hard time grasping everything that's happening; she doesn't undertand what was bad about her vote and her "hunches" (whatever that means); she evades a bit the question of why didn't she post her thoughts before voting, before saying she's bad at hunting and more used to vote without accompanying information or reasoning.

From what I've written before, that exchange with Sloonei is still the only thing making me question whether she would be on the mafia team and get open assistance/vouching in the thread, in such a style. It smells disaster, the way Sloonei vouched for her shy gaming style. So, to be honest, I'm still pondering if she made one hell of a blunder or she's playing her confused card to full effect, but I am certainly not glad how her vote contributed to the whole endgame blow up.

-----

Also natural is that DDL doesn't look as hot to me after D3's vote - although, at a lynch tally of bloody two votes, it's hard to call culprits and Cookie's vote still looks far worse. He's 0-2 in hunting, complete with full reasoning and heavy debates with the hunted ones, which he acknowledges. Might also have a bad N4 ahead of him, if Rorschach is still alive by then and decided to track him ([jokey] funny thing, Rorschach also respected Nite Owl II, so he might really not be pleased [/jokey]). From his debate with DH and MP, it is a bit intriguing the ISO angle he took at one point, but moreover because it polarized quite a bit of the endgame discussion; I'm not entirely sure if he forced it (the way MP suggested) or intentionally fed it to the thread, but it's a peculiar angle nonetheless; on the other hand, his posts didn't look too bad to me once I got his main point that he suspected DH for other things, that he disliked some of DH's points on him and that DH making ISOs wasn't the charge, it was just something that didn't change his [DDL's] mindset a whole lot.

However, I have one theory in mind and it has to do with DH's ISO on him. Now, since DH flipped Nite Owl, I've stated in the thread and still am keeping in mind that DH could have used up one or two abilities - protections notwithstanding - depending whether he created the D2 poll or not: so that's a lie detection and/or an alignment check. Remember DH's verdict on DDL? "My money has DDL as Moloch." This is really sticking out to me, now that I've gone back to read. As an ISO conclusion, it feels a bit detached or jumping a few steps, compared to the rest he wrote/commented on DDL. One good reason why that would be? He tried to plant the info. It's the only pin DH made on anyone. I've asked him why does he think DDL looks Moloch to him, exactly because it didn't seem to result from his read. DH never answered. I don't remember DDL disputing this statement either, despite, at the same time, disliking heavily and openly the things DH said about him. Maybe an attempt to sweep this under the rug? IDK, but it's on my mind.

---

Once again, you all will have to tell me why I should trust Eloh in this game, because I don't. Her D3 endgame was, alongside Cookie's, all over the place, for reasons of tiredness, lack of focus, giddiness etc. Yet she still played a part in the hustle and bustle. Yes, her D1-2 votes don't look as bad as others, although they're still debatable if backed up by good reasoning or timing. I just can't call her trustworthy during such times, when I'm trying to keep my head in the game. Even strictly factual, much of her D3 endgame makes little sense:

-- fears G-Man and LC might be Mafia (G-Man count: 1)
-- doesn't see case on Cookie
-- agrees with DDL that DH isn't genuine
-- suddenly agrees with case on Cookie as well
-- What does this post mean?
-- feels DH made good rebuttals
-- would vote espers from MP's lists, without feeling strongly about her
-- would vote G-Man or any quiet players (G-Man count: 2)
-- her last-second, "water gun" voting choice would be G-Man (G-Man count: 3)
-- votes MP

wat
My attempted version from all this would be that, considering how the voting went along, she could have done the following:

-- vote espers ("would vote espers from MP's lists") to tie at least or save DH ("feels DH made good rebuttals")
-- vote G-Man to tie him with DH and espers, at least, if she really feels that strongly about him - she said she'd vote him three times
-- vote Cookie once Cookie made her blunder vote and MP sanctioned her - although I'm not sure if there was still time, it was really on the last minute stretch - she agreed with the case on Cookie, didn't she?
-- vote a quiet player, since she stressed any of them makes her feel uneasy and her idea of mafia is that it's a quiet one

yet she did none of this. She voted the player she agreed with, the most active player in the thread and spread a vote absolutely nowhere.

Night 3 she think LoRab could be bad, Cookie could be bad, G-Man could still be bad. Interesting wording, too, either of them for her could be "the last two baddies". If Eloh's civ, doesn't she consider Moloch also a baddie? Could it be a slip, if she is Moloch?
I'm also wondering if she's not doing some distancing from LoRab. She could have easily voted G-Man together with her and push him into the tie or further, yet she didn't. She said nothing about her all game long until now.

---

Not much new on espers. He wondered why G-Man voted to try to save DH and I don't understand what's odd about it for him. His ISO attempts have been the least involved so far, he stopped after the first three players and has yet to pick it up.

---

I still don't have a strong read on G-Man, but it's fairly neutral and far from the same suspicions I have on others. Also, I'm thinking again of DH possibly using his lie detector whilst alive. He specifically didn't see the fuss about the whole LD debate, so it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that he might have checked precisely what the fuss was about G-Man's statements and they might have come clean. He gave G-Man the most neutral-slightly positive review, without making a great effort to explain why that is.

Scotty wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts

Hey Tiny! Nice to see you again~~ Looking forward to hearing from you

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I'm going to do a little check through Cookie's posts. I'm not going to baby her, because I think she is capable and responsible for her posts thus far. (I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up recently and I have missed them)

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cookie wrote:What? I decided to change my vote to follow someone else because what they said made sense to me? Once I read the links MP posted, I remembered what DDL had said about DH earlier. How does that make me suspicious? I voted on a hunch. I did not think that my suspicions against DDL or Espers were strong enough to vote for them, especially when I was uncertain of my vote against Golden (and look where that got us - life without Golden). When I reread what DDL posted, I had remembered their conversation. It was quite an easy change of heart.

So you went from having two suspects, not strong, then to reading a series of posts and suddenly having a suspect that eclipsed your thoughts of the other two, with enough confidence to vote?

My problem with it is that you never explained your thought process.

Was I supposed to just not vote if I wasn't confident on anyone?

You don't really seem interested in baddie hunting.

Is that true?

I have zero confidence in my abilities to baddie hunt, therefore, I am following others in their suspicions, mostly. I have played this game before, however, never really had to scumhunt. I've always gone by hunches and power roles and unfortunately, this isn't working out that well for me in this game.

Someone who is "following others in their suspicions" seems pretty blendy to me. Piggybacking, if you will. Yes, she seems lost as well, but that could be a strategy.

Cookie wrote:

Sloonei wrote:With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.

Sloon.. I'm scared.. Hold me.

Thanks for your kind words! I'm still getting used to the idea of scumhunting. I feel like a huge noob compared to MP and others. I'm looking forward to learning how to challenge people more in their posts.

There is a lot of new language and "reads" is new to me as well.

I have to go to work so I will post more later. Bye!!

Sloonei preemptively defending her is a red flag. He even said "in fairness...it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a 'newb'". So Sloonei seems to butter her up but push her out of the nest at the same time. I take that as harmless but possibly a brief defense. Justification planted by Sloonei, so that no matter what, we're looking at her as the baby of the group that can make mistakes and fly under the radar.

I do think she is honest about her misgivings and mistakes generally, and so her "reads" (which are new to her) are going to be raw, right?

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.

I noticed that as well and was curious why the sudden change in suspicion against Sloonei. And then voted for Sloonei without an explanation (that I saw). Could this be a scummy tactic for ensuring people think that he/she is civ? In Elo's defense, if he/she is a baddie, he/she would not have voted Sloonei at the time that he/she did. Many people were on the fence about him and the votes were tied between Sloonei and Niju. If Elo was bad, he/she'd have vted Niju. I don't know what to make of this.

This is very much fence sitting. I want to find a post where she makes her own reads and worthwhile opinions on people because at this point I know she is capable of it. Looking more in to her history so let's see..

Cookie wrote:Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.

She seems genuinely out of her league here. I'm imagining her as the little mousey girl at a birthday party trying to get things in between conversations, but just can't seem to do it. I get that feeling sometimes when this thread is moving. But even inexperience isn't a reasoning for not posting thoughts. Plus, she hasn't had any reservations echoing what other people thought before this, so...

Her read on Golden is once again, contradictory and fence-sitting. Then she votes for Golden.

Cookie wrote:G-Man,
I really appreciate you doing that analysis. It puts everything into such clear perspective. I've never played in a game where people look so closely at votes.

Woof. How does that work?

Cookie wrote:I am working on my list of suspect's right now! I've only just discovered that I can view peoples' vote history by clicking "In Topic" and that let's me review things in isolation instead of reading up on the past 5 pages.

Oh good! She's working on suspects- that's good, because so far they've been few and far between.

Cookie wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Golden

This isn't black and white. I may think you are my biggest suspect, and that you are the best one among the four I have to pick from, but I'd be foolish to be 100% sure if you are mafia. And if you're gonna accuse me, I have to defend myself. If I'm right and you're mafia, then no problem, I'm safe. But if I'm wrong, I'd better start defusing the bomb you're trying to plant on me.

And the reason I voted earlier is that I always do that. I hate voting late, because I know I'll look bad because of it regardless of whether I lynch civ or bad. I'd rather vote earlier and risk my neck, and show I put my vote where my mouth is.

This post struck me as odd, especially when he talks about voting late and how it makes people look suspicious. This is interesting because earlier somewhere in this thread, he talked about Espers looking bad because he voted near the end of day for Sloonei. I can't tell if it's a guilty conscience. Other than that and his entire argument with Golden just seemed forced, like he was looking for a reason to vote out Golden (I don't know if that was on purpose or not, would someone do that as a townie?). At this point, I would not vote for DDL but I regard Golden as a good player and if he found DDL suspicious, then I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote upon.

In the beginning of the game, I found Elo suspicious because of her voting to tie up the votes on Day 1, however, she has posted more and I no longer find her suspicious.

Honestly, I'm shocked that MP has not been killed in the NK yet. It seems suspicious because he seems to be a very good player which could possibly turn out to be a threat to the mafia if he started calling them out, unless the Inmates have not killed him because they are high up on his rainbow list?

Cookie does bring up a unique point and perspectie about DDL with reference to something DDL said earlier. I wish she had linked the post he said that in, since we do know she can do that. But it's a start, which is awesome! Cookie points for brownie! I mean..brownie points for Cookie!
So is DDL a suspect? Well..."if Golden finds him suspicious, that I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote on." Oooo, back on the fence, dependent on what Golden says. -10 points to Gryffindor
She says Elo was suspicious, now is in the clear.
Then says that MP is supa civ and should have been NK'd by now unless he's got bad info in his rainbow list. Interesting theory, actually.

But still no suspects.

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.

Aha! Here we are! A suspect in espers! Day 3! So Cookie's getting used to looking at someone via voting patterns, eh? Good for her
But it's not specifically what he said. So in essence, you don't like his Day 1 votes, and he isn't fishy while talking...

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay, a wild Cookie appears! Welcome, Cookie!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say.

It wasn't as much as I was hoping. I really have no strong suspicions on anyone and I feel like I'm reaching for straws.

She could be honest here, but what a let-down.

Cookie wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?

I only found you suspicious at the time because I thought you were trying to save a teammate. Like I said, I no longer find you suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.

Would you be willing and able to make a rainbow list of ONLY the players you are considering for a vote in this lynch?

Yup, DDL and Espers are the only two I suspect and they are not really that strong. However, I see that DDL feels strong about DH being suspect and I think I missed why. Can anyone link me?

Back to DDL now as a suspect, eh? She qualifies her suspicions as "not that strong", which checks out, but this is also a cop out. I find it hard to believe she hasn't found anyone with even a moderate scum vibe at this point. Even using a "gut-read" or "vibe-read" or whatever she used in her home forum.

MP later picks up on the sentiment that Cookie doesn't have a strong argument and how she votes for someone anyway. She questions why that makes her suspicious and not DDL.

Cookie wrote:I don't feel that my votes have any accompanying information, but does anyone's truly have good information against them? If they did, everyone would be convinced that 1 specific person is likely to be mafia more than everyone else, and we wouldn't have the problem of not knowing who to vote for. We would all vote for the same person, but alas, we cannot ensure everyone agrees that one person is more suspicious than another.

Why am I so suspicious and DDL is not for that vote against DH? Is it only that I changed to DH with only a few minutes left and he was already decided?

So this post shows a lot of problems in Cookie's mindset, I feel. Evidence comes in citable vote form, citable quote form, and gut-feeling responses. Everyone has evidence that can paint them as suspicious, and that's why there will be multiple people voting. The thing that makes landslides happen is a huge error of judgment on a player's part- a mistake- that is glaringly bad. People will use that as evidence to an extent. They might be wrong, but at least they [should] have definite reason to suspect that person.

Then to answer your next question- I would propose that voting late on a day has the propensity to require more scrutiny, because a) there is more power in your hands to decide close votes and b) you can place your vote harmlessly anywhere you want in the case of landslides and still appear civ.


All in all, Cookie, I feel bad if you are really having a hard time at this forum, where you're having to become accustomed to a more frivolous play than what you're used to. But you've been figuring out the forum. We're a week in to this game, and I'm hoping things are starting to make more sense.

One thing that makes sense to me right now is if you are a newb, then I'd be hard-pressed to say you are either playing an unconvincingly mafia game, or a clue-less civ game, and neither are particularly mouth-watering right now.

Also, please don't take this personal. I just have my blinders on right now. I'll take a step back, and if you ARE a clueless civ, I'm hoping you can start looking at people's votes AND how they back up those votes.

Scotty wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hi guys i'm replacing Bass, as Epignosis mentioned. give me a little while to read through the thread, and i'll post my thoughts

Hey Tiny! Nice to see you again~~ Looking forward to hearing from you

juliets wrote:RIPIYWG LC. I was looking forward to playing with you.
Welcome back Scotty, glad to have you alive (I think)

I am struggling along trying to read some of these people in isolation. Scotty, you said you feel Cookie has been blendy but I disagree. She seems totally lost which stands out to me. I agree with others that Cookie's vote for DH was suspect and that her threat to blame DDL if DH came up good was bad form. The situation surrounding that vote seems to be the main evidence on Cookie and this early in it may be enough to vote her. I just can't decide if she is, with her team's help, faking the newbie posts or whether as I pointed out before, she is genuinely clueless (no offense meant Cookie). Please tell me if there is some other big thing I missed on Cookie that might affect my voting for her.

I'm going to do a little check through Cookie's posts. I'm not going to baby her, because I think she is capable and responsible for her posts thus far. (I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up recently and I have missed them)

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cookie wrote:What? I decided to change my vote to follow someone else because what they said made sense to me? Once I read the links MP posted, I remembered what DDL had said about DH earlier. How does that make me suspicious? I voted on a hunch. I did not think that my suspicions against DDL or Espers were strong enough to vote for them, especially when I was uncertain of my vote against Golden (and look where that got us - life without Golden). When I reread what DDL posted, I had remembered their conversation. It was quite an easy change of heart.

So you went from having two suspects, not strong, then to reading a series of posts and suddenly having a suspect that eclipsed your thoughts of the other two, with enough confidence to vote?

My problem with it is that you never explained your thought process.

Was I supposed to just not vote if I wasn't confident on anyone?

You don't really seem interested in baddie hunting.

Is that true?

I have zero confidence in my abilities to baddie hunt, therefore, I am following others in their suspicions, mostly. I have played this game before, however, never really had to scumhunt. I've always gone by hunches and power roles and unfortunately, this isn't working out that well for me in this game.

Someone who is "following others in their suspicions" seems pretty blendy to me. Piggybacking, if you will. Yes, she seems lost as well, but that could be a strategy.

Cookie wrote:

Sloonei wrote:With regards to Cookie, since I'm the only person here who's got any familiarity with her as a player, I feel like I should offer what insight I can.

She comes from a fairly young mafia community and the games there are still a little um primitive, if that's not a mean thing to say, and, like she said, people tend to rely heavily on power roles and night actions and crazy bandwagon hunches and stuff. I've never played any games there, but I'm the one who introduced mafia on the site and have modded/spectated a bunch of games, and in my opinion Cookie is one of the the strongest players in the community (and one of the only ones who I felt comfortable enough with to invite here). I'm hella excited to see how she handles the more intense gameplay here and have full confidence in her abilities, but in fairness to her and everyone else it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a "noob".

Hello Cookie, welcome. Give me a full list of reads on every player by noon tomorrow.

Sloon.. I'm scared.. Hold me.

Thanks for your kind words! I'm still getting used to the idea of scumhunting. I feel like a huge noob compared to MP and others. I'm looking forward to learning how to challenge people more in their posts.

There is a lot of new language and "reads" is new to me as well.

I have to go to work so I will post more later. Bye!!

Sloonei preemptively defending her is a red flag. He even said "in fairness...it should be known that a lot of this is probably going to be new to her, but she's certainly not what the kids would call a 'newb'". So Sloonei seems to butter her up but push her out of the nest at the same time. I take that as harmless but possibly a brief defense. Justification planted by Sloonei, so that no matter what, we're looking at her as the baby of the group that can make mistakes and fly under the radar.

I do think she is honest about her misgivings and mistakes generally, and so her "reads" (which are new to her) are going to be raw, right?

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held), and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.

I noticed that as well and was curious why the sudden change in suspicion against Sloonei. And then voted for Sloonei without an explanation (that I saw). Could this be a scummy tactic for ensuring people think that he/she is civ? In Elo's defense, if he/she is a baddie, he/she would not have voted Sloonei at the time that he/she did. Many people were on the fence about him and the votes were tied between Sloonei and Niju. If Elo was bad, he/she'd have vted Niju. I don't know what to make of this.

This is very much fence sitting. I want to find a post where she makes her own reads and worthwhile opinions on people because at this point I know she is capable of it. Looking more in to her history so let's see..

Cookie wrote:Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.

She seems genuinely out of her league here. I'm imagining her as the little mousey girl at a birthday party trying to get things in between conversations, but just can't seem to do it. I get that feeling sometimes when this thread is moving. But even inexperience isn't a reasoning for not posting thoughts. Plus, she hasn't had any reservations echoing what other people thought before this, so...

Her read on Golden is once again, contradictory and fence-sitting. Then she votes for Golden.

Cookie wrote:G-Man,
I really appreciate you doing that analysis. It puts everything into such clear perspective. I've never played in a game where people look so closely at votes.

Woof. How does that work?

Cookie wrote:I am working on my list of suspect's right now! I've only just discovered that I can view peoples' vote history by clicking "In Topic" and that let's me review things in isolation instead of reading up on the past 5 pages.

Oh good! She's working on suspects- that's good, because so far they've been few and far between.

Cookie wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Golden

This isn't black and white. I may think you are my biggest suspect, and that you are the best one among the four I have to pick from, but I'd be foolish to be 100% sure if you are mafia. And if you're gonna accuse me, I have to defend myself. If I'm right and you're mafia, then no problem, I'm safe. But if I'm wrong, I'd better start defusing the bomb you're trying to plant on me.

And the reason I voted earlier is that I always do that. I hate voting late, because I know I'll look bad because of it regardless of whether I lynch civ or bad. I'd rather vote earlier and risk my neck, and show I put my vote where my mouth is.

This post struck me as odd, especially when he talks about voting late and how it makes people look suspicious. This is interesting because earlier somewhere in this thread, he talked about Espers looking bad because he voted near the end of day for Sloonei. I can't tell if it's a guilty conscience. Other than that and his entire argument with Golden just seemed forced, like he was looking for a reason to vote out Golden (I don't know if that was on purpose or not, would someone do that as a townie?). At this point, I would not vote for DDL but I regard Golden as a good player and if he found DDL suspicious, then I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote upon.

In the beginning of the game, I found Elo suspicious because of her voting to tie up the votes on Day 1, however, she has posted more and I no longer find her suspicious.

Honestly, I'm shocked that MP has not been killed in the NK yet. It seems suspicious because he seems to be a very good player which could possibly turn out to be a threat to the mafia if he started calling them out, unless the Inmates have not killed him because they are high up on his rainbow list?

Cookie does bring up a unique point and perspectie about DDL with reference to something DDL said earlier. I wish she had linked the post he said that in, since we do know she can do that. But it's a start, which is awesome! Cookie points for brownie! I mean..brownie points for Cookie!
So is DDL a suspect? Well..."if Golden finds him suspicious, that I would trust that suspicion. This isn't enough for me to cast a vote on." Oooo, back on the fence, dependent on what Golden says. -10 points to Gryffindor
She says Elo was suspicious, now is in the clear.
Then says that MP is supa civ and should have been NK'd by now unless he's got bad info in his rainbow list. Interesting theory, actually.

But still no suspects.

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.

Aha! Here we are! A suspect in espers! Day 3! So Cookie's getting used to looking at someone via voting patterns, eh? Good for her
But it's not specifically what he said. So in essence, you don't like his Day 1 votes, and he isn't fishy while talking...

Cookie wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yay, a wild Cookie appears! Welcome, Cookie!

Can't wait to hear what you have to say.

It wasn't as much as I was hoping. I really have no strong suspicions on anyone and I feel like I'm reaching for straws.

She could be honest here, but what a let-down.

Cookie wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?

I only found you suspicious at the time because I thought you were trying to save a teammate. Like I said, I no longer find you suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Cookie wrote:Oh, I forgot about Espers. I am suspicious of him because of his voting patterns day one. Nothing he has said specifically has made me feel suspicious of him. I'm not sure if that's enough to go on, considering that was a similar reasoning for my vote against Golden.

Would you be willing and able to make a rainbow list of ONLY the players you are considering for a vote in this lynch?

Yup, DDL and Espers are the only two I suspect and they are not really that strong. However, I see that DDL feels strong about DH being suspect and I think I missed why. Can anyone link me?

Back to DDL now as a suspect, eh? She qualifies her suspicions as "not that strong", which checks out, but this is also a cop out. I find it hard to believe she hasn't found anyone with even a moderate scum vibe at this point. Even using a "gut-read" or "vibe-read" or whatever she used in her home forum.

MP later picks up on the sentiment that Cookie doesn't have a strong argument and how she votes for someone anyway. She questions why that makes her suspicious and not DDL.

Cookie wrote:I don't feel that my votes have any accompanying information, but does anyone's truly have good information against them? If they did, everyone would be convinced that 1 specific person is likely to be mafia more than everyone else, and we wouldn't have the problem of not knowing who to vote for. We would all vote for the same person, but alas, we cannot ensure everyone agrees that one person is more suspicious than another.

Why am I so suspicious and DDL is not for that vote against DH? Is it only that I changed to DH with only a few minutes left and he was already decided?

So this post shows a lot of problems in Cookie's mindset, I feel. Evidence comes in citable vote form, citable quote form, and gut-feeling responses. Everyone has evidence that can paint them as suspicious, and that's why there will be multiple people voting. The thing that makes landslides happen is a huge error of judgment on a player's part- a mistake- that is glaringly bad. People will use that as evidence to an extent. They might be wrong, but at least they [should] have definite reason to suspect that person.

Then to answer your next question- I would propose that voting late on a day has the propensity to require more scrutiny, because a) there is more power in your hands to decide close votes and b) you can place your vote harmlessly anywhere you want in the case of landslides and still appear civ.


All in all, Cookie, I feel bad if you are really having a hard time at this forum, where you're having to become accustomed to a more frivolous play than what you're used to. But you've been figuring out the forum. We're a week in to this game, and I'm hoping things are starting to make more sense.

One thing that makes sense to me right now is if you are a newb, then I'd be hard-pressed to say you are either playing an unconvincingly mafia game, or a clue-less civ game, and neither are particularly mouth-watering right now.

Also, please don't take this personal. I just have my blinders on right now. I'll take a step back, and if you ARE a clueless civ, I'm hoping you can start looking at people's votes AND how they back up those votes.